[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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




Home | Date list | Subject list