To: Joe Abley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:57:40 +0100
Subject: Standard mappings hardwired in EPP servers? (Was: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:59:11AM -0500, Joe Abley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > 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. Yes, but this could be a nightmare for the implementor of the EPP server: if you distribute a shrink-wrapped server (wether free software or closed), you need some sort of plug-in mechanism in the server in order to support "alternative" mappings. It is not obvious to realize. (/etc/epp.conf contains a relationship of extension->module/class to load? And the registry develops the local modules/classes?) Let's try: how many EPP servers (whatever their legal status) have the "standard" mappings hardwired in the code? I assume "all". It is also a problem for the registrars: if you interact with several registries and they use different EPP mappings, you lose a part of the reason to have a standard protocol...