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

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Klaus Malorny wrote:
>> I didn't say that. People can compromise. If they believe they have a 
>> benefit from it, directly or indirectly. They won't if there aren't enough 
>> incentives.
> 
> Well, this is different from the position as you put it before, where
> the suggestion is that the registries _can't_ compromise.  If you're
> merely making the assertion that they _won't_, then it's a question
> that is empirically satisfied.  But given that (for example) NeuStar,
> VeriSign, and Afilias managed together to co-ordinate a response to
> the ICANN redemption grace period, there's at least _prima facie_
> evidence that your assertion is false.
> 

You likely did it because you believed that you would have a benefit from the 
cooperation. No contradiction to what I wrote.


>> Hmm. Maybe you don't know. HTML is dead. HTML is the prototype of a failed 
>> standard in many ways. W3C is working for many, many years now to fix that.
> 
> But it was nevertheless hugely successful, even if it's not pure. 
> The point here, as I understand it, is at least partly "running
> code"; and by that estimation, HTML was a wild success.  
> 

Well, no doubt that HTML was a success. But mostly because it was broken by 
Netscape & MS, who introduced elements like the <font> element or various 
attributes for tables etc. that allowed the usersto "design" their pages for the 
first time instead of having them to look like scientific essays, and who wrote 
HTML parsers that forgave nearly every syntactical error of the author.

>> Well, I can send e-mails to nearly everyone connected to the Internet 
>> without using X-headers. But I can't register a .us, .coop, .eu domain, for 
>> example, without using the appropriate proprietary extensions. I can do 
>> this only for vanilla registries, mostly gTLDs. There is a difference at 
>> least to me.
> 
> First, there _are_ people who use X headers as tokens for various
> things, which then extend the functionality of those systems (it
> seems to me that I've had messages from a Lotus Notes user that
> contained more X-headers than anything else).  I couldn't use that
> functionality, because I didn't know what the headers meant.  Does
> that meant that those particular X-headers are bad?  (I say, "No.")
> 

Please read what I have written. I never claimed that X-headers are bad. Also, 
in a closed user group, it is not a problem to use proprietary extensions.

> More significantly, though, your argument above seems to be that,
> because you have to use this or that extension to a base protocol to
> express this or that unusual policy in a given registry, that proves
> that the base protocol is not useful.  It's really a false dichotomy:
> either the protocol can be used everywhere, or it's not a protocol. 
> You're welcome to that view; but with respect, I think it's not one
> consistent with a large portion of technical or even human
> experience: "SQL" is still a useful name for something, even though
> the way you express it when using Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL, or MS SQL
> Server are different.

Again, you interpret my words in a false way. I clearly indicated that it will 
become _less_ useful. Same applies to SQL.

> 
>> By the way, you are the one who wants to dictate every registry to use a 
>> standard, namely EPP. I just question the value of a standard that is 
>> practically incomplete for a non-negligible number of registries in the one 
>> hand, and too limited for them at the same time in the other hand.
> 
> I don't want to dictate anything: use what you want.  I am
> suggesting, however, that the limitations you are observing can be
> solved by the creative use of the extension mechanism; and that
> co-ordination on that front may be achieved through the IETF. 
> Therefore, I claim it would be more helpful to suggest alterations or
> extensions than it is to stand by and make sweeping claims about
> disutility.  In my opinion, registries that adopt, extend, and
> improve EPP have an advantage over those that stick with a different
> base protocol.  This is a matter for empirical discovery, though; and
> it'd be hard to test my hypothesis if we don't have any hold outs.
> 
> A
> 

Sorry to say that, I don't know whether it is the language barrier and my bad 
English, your personal dislike of critism on EPP or even a breeze of arrogance 
that you constantly miss the point I am talking about. If you had read my 
previous postings carefully enough, you wouldn't fight on non-existing battle 
fields. Therefore, I regard any further discussion on this topic as a waste of 
my time. As I have to waste my time elsewhere, e.g. on implementing the EURid 
EPP extensions (@EURid: no personal attack, but a matter of fact), I won't 
continue the discussion.

regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de             Tel. +49 231 9703 0