[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: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:17:14 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index: AcXUyq1eZOAx/IHrRty4yqJOQlZDEQAAm6Bg
Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:09 PM
> To: Edward Lewis
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

[snip]

> Sorry to say that, but in the beginning of the provreg 
> working group Scott and 
> others of the gTLD faction were just too confined to the 
> Verisign model and 
> fully ignored the ccTLDs, their needs and their models. IMHO 
> this discouraged 
> many ccTLDs from participating. EPP is indeed "extensible", 
> but in some aspects 
> just not at all.

I still really resent statements like this because no one "fully
ignored" anybody's needs.  I know that I and others took great pains to
try to boil down the defined structures to essential minimums as issues
were brought to the group's attention, pushing as much TLD-specific
stuff as possible off for local definition.  That means that "local
policy" things needed by individual registries are up to them to
specify.

I firmly believe that any attempt to specify an "out of the box" domain
registration protocol that included all of the features needed by every
TLD registry would have failed miserably.

-Scott-


Home | Date list | Subject list