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-