To:
Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:31:52 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<20021205212240.52650.qmail@web14311.mail.yahoo.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021203
Subject:
Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
Hong Liu wrote:
> Rick,
>
> I think the same standards apply to both camps. I
> [...]
I second Hong's objections. Up to now no registry I know supports this feature.
So nobody can claim that this belongs to the base functionality of a registry.
In this context I would like to remind you on a discussion I had with Scott in
June 2001. There I suggested to add a field to the responses that reports the
cost of a transaction, e.g. the registration fee for the creation of a domain.
Scott rejected it as follows:
I'd certainly prefer to keep registry-specific billing details out of the
protocol. If they have to be in there anywhere a registry could do whatever
it wants in the <unspec> elements. If you have a proposal in mind, though,
please post it to the list to present a more complete picture and to gather
other opinions.
The same argument applies to the lastVerified topic. It is registry specific, it
is not required for the registration process in any way and therefore violates
the KISS principle. As we discussed, a date alone has no value as registries may
apply differnet policies *IF* they support this field. And maybe they have
different verification methods for different kinds of entities, which they need
to report, too. So this element might be insufficient on the other hand.
We already have a lot of registry-specific and inflexible stuff in EPP, mostly,
but not limited to, the handling of name servers. EPP is clearly designed after
Network Solution's registry model (before they were forced to open the registry
to others), which is far from being generic or prototypical for the existing
ccTLDs around the world.
Once a famous protocol designer (unfortunately, I don't know who it was) said,
that in the aim to optimize a protocol, one should not ask what should be added
to it, but what can be removed. In this sense, I suggest not to add this element.
regards,
Klaus
___________________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund
Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0