Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

[Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 06:08:31PM +0200, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> the clear disadvantage that every single XML element added as an extension 
> of EPP diminishes the benefit of EPP, namely to have a generic interface 
> that can be used with a generic toolkit and a generic registrar software. 

I hear this all the time, and it troubles me.  The point of the
extension mechanism is that it should be fairly trivial for an
extension to be prepared and made available.  Since servers can
announce their capabilities when negotiating connection, what is the
overwhelming barrier?  It it just a namespace problem, or are people
discovering that extensible servers or clients are really that tough
to build?

If it's the _former_ problem, all we need is a namespace registry,
right?  If it's the latter, what would make the problem less
difficult to solve?  A number of changes were recently proposed by
Scott.  Where were the people reporting all these problems when we
were trying to gather reports of experience?  (Once again, I'm
probably overlooking something self-evident to everyone else, but
maybe you folks could hit me with the clue stick.)

A

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