[ietf-provreg] extensions to EPP was Re: Setting TTLs (was ...

[Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>]

At 12:09 -0500 1/26/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>Nevertheless, I find this interesting (and I'd sure like to see this
>be one of the extensions that gets documented by any new provreg2 WG).

When you consider extensions in individual, it's not compulsory 
(required) that all extensions to EPP be put through a standards 
process.  There's probably some subjective benchmark at which a 
standard definition is a good idea.

But looking at the population of such extensions, I become concerned 
that the protocol could become an architectural nightmare.  This has 
happened before, extensions in DNS spurred BIND 8 to replace BIND 4, 
in operating systems this happened too about 15-20 years ago.

I'm not singling out this extension, but throwing another thought out 
there regarding whether we want to request a BoF this summer and rev 
up a provisioning protocol wg.

(I'm certainly not trying to rope in innovations out there - such as 
4310bis - progress shouldn't be stopped.)
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

As with IPv6, the problem with the deployment of frictionless surfaces is
that they're not getting traction.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se