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

[Hong Liu <lhongsms@yahoo.com>]

Scott,

Thanks for the comments. I agree with your points. I
just want to validate them on the list. I think that
goes a long way to clarifying mis-conceptions that
some people may claim. 

So what does it mean by implementing EPP standards by
IETF for domain registries? Does it mean that it
_must_ implement the following EPP "core" documents as
is when they become RFCs?

- EPP base
- Domain mapping
- Contact mapping
- Host mapping
- TCP mapping (???)

Of course this is the minimum set of specifications.
One can always implement additional features as
extensions to domain/contact/host objects. 

[I don't know if TCP mapping should be included in the
minimum set or not.]

--Hong

--- "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
wrote:
> > 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-


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