To:
<JGould@verisign.com>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
From:
<janusz@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:26:04 -0500 (EST)
Importance:
Normal
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal
James, I don't think protocol extension offers more clarity than command response extension. In the first approach the verb is provided in explicit way but the object the verb is releted to is missing. Looking at the syntax you attached it is not obvious that <rgp:restore> is a domain related operation. In the second approach the object is clearly defined but the verb is defined in implicit manner. The protocol extension approach is more difficult to implement. With this approach the rgp syntax will be more complex. The samples you attached to your original proposal are incorrect and they offer very simplistic view of necessary changes to rgp draft document. I pointed that out in my first response. More complex rgp syntax can be used as a rough but objective measure for determining amount of efforts required for implementing a particular approach. Subjective references to a particular server implementation attempts SHOULD NOT be used as a such measure. You said in one of your responses in the thread that if protocol extension is not adopted for rgp then "there is really no purpose for defining the protocol extension in EPP". I disagree with that judgment. An example for a usefull application of protocol extension would a be a new verb that is not directly associated with existing object mappings. Something like poll or hello command. Janusz Sienkiewicz