RE: TCP Mapping

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> <HL> 
> So Eric, you are for Scott's proposal to use the <extension> 
> child element
> for defining the PUSH. Am I getting it right? Maybe you could 
> expand on this
> topic a bit more... Indeed, this is the most important choice 
> to make for
> our draft at the moment: how to tag a server-pushed message? 
> Other issues
> will follow once we get this straightened out.
> 
> If we adopt Scott's proposal, we may just define a new <push> 
> command, a
> response, and possibly a few new respond code. The new 
> command will be from
> the server to a client, which will break the base EPP model a 
> bit. Are we
> going in this direction?
> </HL>

It doesn't "break the base EPP model" at all.  The extension mechanisms
exist for this very purpose; they just need to be used properly.  One hint:
if you have to change _anything_ in an existing schema, you're not defining
an extension properly -- you're modifying part of the protocol.

-Scott-