Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal

[janusz sienkiewicz <janusz@libertyrms.info>]

I agree that Jim might be right about redemption not really being an extension
of renewal. From the other hand rgp as an extension of <renew> command can be
used without any major problems on both server and client side. As a proof of
that already deployed rgp implementations that use <renew> command for rgp
redemption could be used. There are near future plans for additional
deployments of similiar rgp implementations.

I think that unless something is really broken with <renew> approach, rgp
syntax changes that may impact operating clients should be avoided.

Janusz Sienkiewicz

"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:

> Jim and I had a long talk about his ideas before he sent them to the list.
> I encouraged him to do so since I knew others were looking at ways to
> implement RGP.
>
> While I don't personally like the idea of adding new command verbs
> (extending the protocol) for operations that seem (to me) similar to an
> existing operation, I do think that Jim might be right about redemption not
> really being an extension of renewal.  I'm thinking about the merits of
> changing the extension from the <renew> command to the <update> command.
> How would that sit with those of you who care about the RGP?
>
> -Scott-
>