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

[Werner Staub <werner@axone.ch>]

Hi Andrew,

Jun 08, 2006 at 11:34:58AM +0200, Werner Staub wrote:
>> EPP is strong in terms of executing provisioning requests, but weak
>> in terms of managing the result. In the early days, it was justifiable
>> to neglect the management bit, but now, after 6 years, we really should
>> do something about it.
> 
> Well, if someone wants to put together a draft outlining such
> changes, I promise to read it (and comment, if I have anything to
> say).  It seems to me that this is duplicating functionality already
> available elsewhere, though.  I still don't see how a second
> protocol, well designed for large result sets, is the wrong way to do
> this.  Think UNIX: small tools that do one thing well, chained
> together.  Indeed, that's one of the things I like about the desigh
> of EPP -- the mappings are more or less independent of one another,
> and the core protocol only defines what is needed for mappings.

You are certainly right from a technical point of view. But functionality
is one thing, standardization is another. By analogy, inches, yards,
zoll, pulgadas, Ellen, coudées, Faden etc. do the same job as meters.
But their diversity and lack of coherence makes them problematic at best.

This is also the answer to whether a new protocol or an extension of the
existing protocol should be used. EPP is just a name. Techies can
live with many acronyms. Non-techies will only learn one. And the
non-techies are the ones who will make the final decisions. To them,
EPP means "*the* solution for domains". So most probably, we we should
do exactly what you say, choose a collection of small tools, but
specify how exactly they should be used in this context, and refer to
the whole as EPP.

Regards,

Werner