[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
CC: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: janusz <janusz@ca.afilias.info>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:58:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <43551C42.800@knipp.de>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

Klaus Malorny wrote:

>
> On the other hand, while EPP does provide a legal means to create 
> additional commands via the second level "<epp:extension>" element, 
> one should rethink the fixed command set of the "commandType" schema 
> type when an update of EPP is considered. Having an additional command 
> as an extension outside of the "<command>" element, it is not clear 
> that the typical command/response behaviour shall apply to this 
> command as well.
>
>
Klaus,
if "commandType" schema type was extended as you are proposing then EPP 
protocol would have more than one way of creating new EPP commands. What 
should be then the policy for protocol implementers for choosing one way 
over the other? Do you have any particular criteria in mind?

Janusz


Home | Date list | Subject list