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


To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:58:47 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051020124620.GA6541@nic.fr>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: EPP domain:transfer

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 02:46:20PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> What's the purpose of this? Intellectual exercice? Standards are
> supposed to make life *simpler*. If you need a lot of work to fit your
> business rules into the standard, then it is not worth it.

I don't see how the last sentence follows from the preceding one.
Standards are supposed to make _everyone's_ life (i.e. considered as
a complete set) simpler.  That might mean that some people's lives
actually get slightly harder.  That's part of the trade-off in
standards development, it seems to me.

> EPP is a bad standard because it is not possible, giving the variety
> of registration rules, to have a standard which is both standard
> (meaning reuse of software) and sufficient.

A claim of impossibility is pretty strong.  It might be that people
don't think it's worth it; but I find it awful hard to believe that
it's impossible.  I know that Afilias has at least managed to
accommodate some variety of registration rules inside the standard.  

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110


Home | Date list | Subject list