To:
Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date:
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:57:40 +0100
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<A9104546-0933-11D7-A545-00039312C852@isc.org>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.28i
Subject:
Standard mappings hardwired in EPP servers? (Was: lastVerified: optional vs. extension
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:59:11AM -0500, Joe Abley <jabley@isc.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...