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

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

> 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.]

Right now the only documents the IESG is considering for publication as
proposed standards are those that are in the WG document set as listed
above.  If a registry claims conformance to the _IETF_ standards for EPP,
the WG documents are the only documents involved.  As of right now the WG
set includes the TCP mapping document, but that could change if some other
transport document is ever completed.

It's also possible that another organization like OASIS could develop EPP
object mappings, and someone could claim to conform to the OASIS EPP
specifications.  That's cool, we have extensibility to allow this sort of
thing.  This does leave the door open for someone to develop a similar
mapping that's just different enough to prevent interoperability.  In the
ICANN world this could be resolved by negotiating requirements with
registries and registrars to conform to one set of specifications over any
other specifications to avoid interoperability issues.

-Scott-