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

[Patrick <pat+ietf@patoche.org>]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:32:10AM -0500, Michael Young took time to write:
> You don't specifiy that you actually have implemented RGP via the renew
> command extension for any registries.  Given that you state its been six
> months since you implemented epp clients, it seems you couldn't have done so
> for RGP(renew ext approach) which came in later than that.

I do not see how this information can be useful to our work.
In fact I do not see that this WG should put in stone what appears to
be current implementations. It should develop a sane standard, and if
things are not finally as they are today in the wild, it is not a
problem of this WG.

As someone doing implementations, I prefer James approach on this
issue, and that is only what I am saying, since people asked.
And when not coding, I can read drafts and see what I prefer, thanks
for asking.

> Also we have a silent majority of well over a hundred registrars that are
> using RGP via the renew command extension today. 

And then what ?
Because everyone is doing something, this WG is forbidden to specify
things otherwise ?

> I have yet to see any
> registrars come into the list and specifically say they have a desire to
> reimplement the current EPP approach to RGP.  The gains in adopting a new
> command for the community at large are not greater than the efforts to
> redeploy an entirely new approach in EPP registries when an
> adequate/workable approach exists.  After all we are talking about EPP
> concerns in this group, not RRP concerns.  

Sorry, but EPP not being right now a standard, and not even an RFC,
what people are doing right now is *irrelevant* to what is done with
the standard.

As far am I aware, this thread talks about what is in
draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt or what will be.
So, if people already started to use a *draft* to implement EPP, and
then add their own specifics like RGP, it is *their* problem.

> I go back to a simple statement.
> 
> "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the problem in hand.
Since the ``it'' (an EPP _standard_ with extensions for RGP for
example) does not exist _yet_.

We can even say this it *is* broken, since I will be happy to learn
how you will handle RGP on other objects than domain name, with a
domain:renew extension.

PS: please no CC to me, I'm subscribed, and please watch your quotes.

-- 
Patrick.
``Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level,
then beat you with experience.''