RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

[Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>]

Rick,

Please see my comments in line. 

Cheers,

--Hong

--- Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Hong Liu wrote:
> 
> > I concur with Scott's observation. I would say
> that
> > extension seems to be the way to go for
> lastVerified.
> 
> 
> Hong,
> 
> My proposal was to have the follwoing XML in the
> contact-1.0.xsd:
> 
>   <complexType name="infDataType">
> ...
>       <element name="lvDate" type="dateTime"
> minOccurs="0"/>
> ...
>   </complexType>
> 
> You have advocated an extention. prposal is as
> complex as the "fax"
> element. Registries can express this critical value
> that many
> organizations are asking for or they may not.
> 
As I explained in another email, even from a technical
perspective, adding this element is not as trivial as
you described above. I would not repeat why it is
different than "fax" here.

If it is in the base protocol, all registries will
have to deal with it, whether they support it or not,
in order to be EPP compliant. The business logic for
registry policy will be driven down to the element
level. We should try to avoid such design if we have
an alternative.

> Why do you prefer to add the burdon of an extention
> whic is much more
> vobers, requireing name space negoiation by the
> server and extion
> libraries for the client to address this ICANN and
> IESG issue?
> 
That is exactly the beauty of extension, and XML
namespace separation. The server makes it explicit in
terms of what namespaces it supports at session
negotiation. XML parsing will fail right away if a
client uses a namespace that the server does not
support. The server business logic is a lot cleaner
than handling it at the element level.

Most importantly, we don't know whether the element by
itself is sufficient for different policies to be set
up. It is premature to incorporate it in the base EPP
spec. What if different registries collect different
data for the same purpose? Then you need to use
extension anyway.

> 
> -rick
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com