Re: [ietf-provreg] new epp commands?

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

On 19 jan 2010, at 14.50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 08:31:58AM -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> It was most definitely a deliberate decision.  The primary reason was
>> because many people felt that this type of reporting feature would be
>> out of place in a provisioning protocol due to the large amount of data
>> that could be returned.
> 
> Also, there was another IETF working group aiming to solve that
> problem, IIRC.  CRISP produced IRIS.  I'm not aware of any
> implementations, however.

IRIS solves a different problem. If you want to sync two databases with epp interface, you definitely want to use epp, as such things like roid, relationship between records etc is absolutely crucial.

But, if the IETF do not want to have a unified way of doing that, then we will done in .SE (I hope) and some other TLDs will invent their way of doing the same thing.

;-)

We have already gone through one issue in Sweden, and that have to do with the fact that access control in EPP was such that a registrar could access more data about records via whois than epp. That forced registrars to use whois in their automated processing, parse the data, risk being blacklisted etc... Now we have made sure (thanks to hard work at .SE) a registrar can always get data about domains in .SE via epp. Not one access mechanism for their domains, and one (whois) for domains the registrar is not a sponsor of.

When you start having tons of data in the registry (about holders, hosts, dnssec keys etc) having one stable way of communicating and not flip flopping between protocols for me absolutely makes sense.

   Patrik


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