To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"'Klaus Malorny'" <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date:
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:59:11 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60337037B@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 07:46 Canada/Eastern, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> 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. > > If this were true and the model were not of more general interest other > members of the WG would have shot it down long ago. It is also important to remember that the domain and nameserver mapping documents are extensions to the base protocol, and not integral to it. There is nothing to stop a registry for whom the current documents are not a good match from writing their own mapping documents that better suit their purposes. Joe