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

["Michael Young" <myoung@ca.afilias.info>]

Perhaps what we need here is an equivalent to DNSOPs for EPP (EPPOPs)?  I
can't help but think that if we were talking about this level of change with
DNS, more than a few operators would get very concerned.

Let's remember that an EPPv2 costs registrars money and time to implement
plus there's risk to changing a core protocol.  I think we need to separate
discussions about updating the core protocol and consolidating efforts
around extensions.  Consolidating efforts around extensions seems like a
reasonable goal in principal to me, changing a core protocol that in use
supporting almost all of the internet is a much more serious objective that
I think needs some serious justification (ie,that vital shortcomings cannot
be addressed through extension work).

Also, we need a representative sample of registrars to weigh in before we
could consider proceeding, after all, they are the client side of this
protocol and their entire infrastructure stands to be effected at some real
$$$ cost.

IMHO, this conversation is very different than building the first EPP
version, now we have real world infrastructure, security and stability to
consider as primary considerations to any core protocol changes. 

Michael Young
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:20 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: EPP Provreg
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list


On 18 jan 2010, at 17.21, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 18 jan 2010, at 16.56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
>> Since I'm playing devil's advocate, however (and let me emphasise that
>> I'm pushing mostly because I think the best way to make a strong
>> argument is to find all its weak points and press on them), where were
>> these voices when the protocol was moving along the standards track?
> 
> In short, I did rise my voice exactly like this, but the document moved
forward, and I thought I was in the minority. I also explicitly then brought
up the issue that exist that some policy issues are not well defined, for
example on what a transfer (of a domain name) implies regarding sponsor of
the contact object that is the holder of the domain.
> 
> The conclusion then was that epp _as_defined_ was implemented as nice and
clean and obviously works.
> 
> The question now is whether we should do eppV2, so I think the questions
are different. Or, that I was told ;-)

Maybe my wording was badly phrased. And I feel I must clarify:

I do NOT think the move of epp to standard was wrong. The protocol is in
wide use. It is usable. We have multiple implementations.

I DO think we should do eppV2 because the deployment and implementation can
be better. I claim we can move more today developed extensions to epp to
become standard parts of the protocol -- and that way make deployment
easier.

    Patrik


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



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