Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Sorry, I missed a few points:
> 
> < The objects themselves are not extensible, you either 
> < have to live with them or you have to replace them.
> 
> Not true.  Each of the domain, contact, and host objects can be extended.
> For example, I have multiple individual submission Internet-Draft documents
> published that extend the domain object.
> 
> It's true that you can't _remove_ required elements from the objects, but
> definition of required elements if why we have a consensus-based process in
> the first place.
> 
> 
>>Error codes are not extensible, with the 
>>consequence that some existing registries put additional 
>>error codes in the free 
>>text elements (which are not thought to be parsed).
> 
> 
> Again, not true.  Additional errors and error codes can be defined using the
> extension mechanism.  If implementers are putting additional error codes in
> inappropriate free text elements they're extending the protocol improperly.
> 
> -Scott-

Hi Scott,

my understanding of "extensibility" is a bit different to to provide a 
single XML element which is a container for every possible extension. 
The problem is, like in any other project that aims to cover future 
developments, to have backdoors at the right places where they are later 
needed. You have some in EPP, of course, but on the other hand, in some 
other aspects EPP is so stringent, much more than it is required and 
more than a registry policy free protocol should have IMHO.

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