EPP Compliance (Was Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension)

[Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>]

Ed, Scott,

This discussion warrants a separate thread since I
believe it begs a clear answer to a fundamental
question: what does it mean by EPP compliance, in the
context of domain name registrations?

While the beauty of EPP is that it applies to many
different types of registries, it has to be a standard
set of extensions for a particular type of registries,
such as domain name registries. Or why bother spending
all the time producing the domain/contact/host mapping
documents to RFCs?

For example, can another domain mapping, which is 95%
the same with the current document, but with 5%
differences (not through extension, but via
modification), claim that it is EPP compliant for
domain registration? I would not think so, but I would
like to hear what the WG think.

Cheers,

--Hong
 
--- Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 


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