Re: [ietf-provreg] a new core command...?

[Eugenio Pinto <eugenio.pinto@fccn.pt>]

Dear James, Michael, Scott

Thanks for the comments.

I understand EPP wasn't designed to be a search protocol because the 
idea was rejected since there was no space in a very big Registry like 
COM/NET to such a funtionality.

We all know that EPP isn't anymore just a communication protocol used in 
global and big Registries.
ccTLD's are beeing interested on it and some premisses that let EPP core 
developers to some decisions may now not be all so true...


Just for the records:

EPP <renew> Command

   Renewal semantics do not apply to host objects, so there is no
   mapping defined for the EPP <renew> command.

EPP <renew> Command

   Renewal semantics do not apply to contact objects, so there is no
   mapping defined for the EPP <renew> command.


So, nowadays we have a <renew> Transform Command used just for a type of 
objects that is the "domain name mapping" because of a specific object 
implementation that is the "domain name mapping"

I'm wondering why wasn't it defined an extension in the "domain name 
mapping" instead of the introduction of the <renew> command in the core 
protocol.

Let's see:

Suppose the development decision was the extension for the domain renew 
command, we would be using a bigger message for the same functionality! 
We would have a lost in performance.
That's the kind of thing I want to prevent with the addition of the new 
command.

Let's compare the <renew> command with a possible <search> command.

1 - The renew command is actually used only for the domain name mapping
2 - A <search> command can be applied to every future object mapping

I know. We can't apply it when we are in a very large Registry 
environment. But, who knows? Maybe if... Are you seeing what I mean?

There are a few commands that DNS.PT will not implement, like the 
<delete> command (policy aspects).

And it's not because we don't need it that the command was not defined.

I think that in a global provisioning protocol, used in a different 
variety of environments  a <search> command is much more useful then a 
<renew> command. But it's just my humble opinion...

Is anyone "out there" that would like to use (or is actually using, by 
means of extensions) an EPP command for searching objects stored in a 
shared central repository?

That's the question...

(Please, reply to this email if you do)

Eugenio Pinto
FCCN - DNS.PT