RE: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list

["Marc Groeneweg" <Marc.Groeneweg@sidn.nl>]

> From my perspective, there are too many extensions out there.
> 
> A WG should:
> 
> - Compile a list of extensions that are developed and used by
> registries
> - Evaluate whether any of those implies changes are needed to the core
> protocol
> - If changes are needed, roll those into the protocol itself
> 
> All to make epp better and easier to use. It is not fun at the moment.

Agreed. SIDN as the Dutch registry is implementing EPP at this very
moment. We are going live in March this year. During the development
phase, we have consulted several registries to try to stay in line with
those regarding EPP and extensions. But we have made our own extension
to get domainnames out of quarantine (period after deleting a
domainname) and didn't follow the RRP extension of Verisign (considered
too complex for the job). No RFC planned though for this. Just like
several other registries, we have documented the differences with the
core protocol. I think that when you write an RFC for this, you should
ask yourself if it's going to contribute to all (not just for one
registry) and are we going to make a standard out of this.

The next planned release of our registry system should have a kind of
trade option (transfer and registrant change in one process), which
several other registries have, but which is different in implementation
from each other. The problem there might be in policies just like there
was in the transfer process.

Marc Groeneweg


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se