RE: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Findings

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:50 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Implementation Report Findings
> 
> although this feature is obviously not implemented anywhere, 
> I personally would 
> not remove it, simply because of the symmetry and the "E" in 
> EPP. Being 
> implemented somewhere is not a good indication of being worth 
> to be supported in 
> future versions of the protocol anyway. For example, the "ok" 
> status value is 
> likely implemented by all registries, but it is factually 
> completely useless, as 
> there would be no loss of information if it is simply omitted.

We don't have a choice, Klaus.  From section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026, second
paragraph:

"In cases in which one or more options or features have not been
demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the
specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those
options or features are removed."

Others have confirmed that implementations exist.  Now we need the
"demonstrated" part.

-Scott-