To:
"Michael Young" <myoung@ca.afilias.info>
Cc:
"'Andrew Sullivan'" <ajs@shinkuro.com>, "'EPP Provreg'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:35:54 +0100
Authentication-Results:
ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-Reply-To:
<001b01ca9906$7f67e810$7e37b830$@afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list
On 19 jan 2010, at 13.54, Michael Young wrote: > 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). True, I agree with this view. I have implemented epp from ground up for .SE, and working on extending for other TLDs So here is a voice from a registrar that would support _some_ work on synchronization while the cost for even making changes is lower than what it will be to have eep + private extensions in every TLD in the world. The goal I think should be to be able to use the same epp client and server implementation for more than one TLD. Patrik -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se