To:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date:
Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:22:56 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<43551C42.800@knipp.de>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)
At 18:01 +0200 10/18/05, Klaus Malorny wrote: >while EURid has updated their specs in a thankworthy way, this still >has a slightly bad aftertaste, as even the namespace of the framing >XML (i.e. the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" namespace) was >required to be changed due to ... What bothers me is that there is a second instance of a registry, in this other case, avoiding EPP and instead building their own protocol. I am not making a judgement call on the wisdom of prefering a home grown effort over a standard, but rather am concerned that the standard wasn't "good" enough for them. See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentations/pdf/ripe51-enum-epp.pdf The talk is somewhat mistitled in the agenda, why DENIC didn't use EPP for ENUM. The reason is simply that DENIC doesn't use EPP for anything. (;)) From slide 7 onwards though is the interesting stuff - why DENIC doesn't use EPP for anything. This is a cry for "use the IETF for what it is for." I would hope to see a detailed critique outlining why EPP is failing to meet the needs of the community come in, and not a feeling that EPP should be shunned. The definition of EPP by the IETF is not to be taken as a royal edict. It should be the collective wit and wisdom of us wise guys. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar True story: Only a routing "expert" would fly London->Minneapolis->Dallas->Minneapolis to get home from a conference. (Cities changed to protect his identity.)