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


To: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Cc: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:48:51 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4356CA01.4050604@knipp.de>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

At 0:34 +0200 10/20/05, Klaus Malorny wrote:

>Anyhow, in my personal retrospective, my question is whether the 
>goal of EPP is
>an illusion.

That is a good point.  But for the sake of technical curiosity, 
knowing the limits of a protocol's usefulness is as important as 
knowing how to extend a protocol.

>The "Extensible" in EPP is from that point of view already a contradiction.
>If it is not limited to extensions also defined by the IETF, it gives freedom
>to the registries on the one hand, but destroys the benefits of the protocol
>on the other hand.

Anyone is free to implement extensions.  The crucial element though 
is to get the extension's schema recognized so that clients can make 
use of the extension.  (Of course - only the clients that need it.)

I hope that it is not the IETF that defines extensions, but rather 
that the IETF reviews the extensions documented and voluntarily 
submitted for review.  Scott's more recent extensions were not 
mandated into being by the IETF.

>(well, execpt for the wrong statement about idempotency...)

I agree(d) with you on that one, even if I didn't post anything about 
that.  When the WG reviewed the idempotency, no one saw the client 
vs. client interactions.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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.)

Home | Date list | Subject list