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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> 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?

I'm not sure that the term "EPP compliance" has _any_ meaning.  Once we have
RFCs it will be possible for implementations to claim conformance with EPP
RFCs xxxx, yyyy, zzzz, etc., but that claim will have to be tied to the
RFCs.  An implementation can conform to the core and transport RFCs, and it
might conform to some other domain mapping specification if one is ever
published by someone else.  In my mind, conformance is a measure of
implementation adherence to some published specification(s), and we can't
stop someone from trying to write their own specifications outside of the
IETF.

> 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.

Such a document could claim to be a valid EPP mapping.  One could also claim
that an implementation of that mapping conforms to whatever RFCs the core
and transport specifications are eventually published as.  One could not
claim, however, that it conforms to whatever RFC the WG domain mapping is
published as.  It might conform to the deviant domain mapping, but that's
all.

-Scott-