Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP to Draft: Next Steps

[Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 01:51:35PM -0400, Michael Young wrote:
> The biggest thing to avoid for everyone was having to run a dual protocol
> server but I don't see that this would be necessary with this version
> increment, given the nature of the changes.

Like Michael, I'm of two minds about the change; but I have doubts
about the claim above.  A version number change is an automatic
client-server incompatibility, if I understand the documents
correctly, so it will either require a flag day upgrade or some sort
of dual-protocol support.  For ICANN-regulated registries, the
decision might be made by the GNSO instead of the registry, too, so
there are some pretty powerful external reasons to prefer leaving the
version number alone.  (That doesn't mean that we should prefer it;
it's just a consideration.)

I think the most principled stand might come from the answer to the
question, "What part of the RFC is 'most normative'?"  If the XML
schema is definitive, and overrules the text where there is
disagreement, then we have an easy answer.  If the _text_ is
definitive, and the XML is mere formalization, then we have a harder
time.

Perhaps there are others who have more experience, and are aware of
cases where this sort of text/formalization inconsistency has been
solved before (and how).  I don't know of any precedents.

A


-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110