To:
janusz <janusz@ca.afilias.info>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:13:14 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<43565112.9080500@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051005)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)
janusz wrote: > 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 > Hi Janusz, well, as I said, that they behave like other commands, i.e. that the answer is a <response> element with the known structure. regards, Klaus ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9 Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny 44227 Dortmund Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de Tel. +49 231 9703 0