To:
Michael Young <myoung@ca.afilias.info>
Cc:
"'Patrick Mevzek'" <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>, "'EPP Provreg'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:43:31 +0200
Authentication-Results:
rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-Reply-To:
<00bb01cb132a$b79e4c30$26dae490$@afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Presentation on EPP present and future
On 24 jun 2010, at 01.20, Michael Young wrote: > Its been said before, but I'll say it again, EPP is an Extensible protocol. > Given its flexibility, I have yet to hear an argument as to why existing > issues cannot be addressed using the extension system. The overall problem is that it is extensible. The amount of new code that has to be written for each registry is a royal pain, and an indication the protocol in reality is not interoperable at all. So, I think the big question is: - Is there a goal to get interoperable implementations? If so, the ability to extend must be _decreased_ a lot. Example of things that must be agreed upon: - The format accepted for various attribute values (telephone numbers, names etc) - What happens in detail with various related records when a domain is transferred ... Just look at the number of special hacks in the perl library for example. If that is not a goal, so that code has to be rewritten for each registry, then of course we have a base protocol that "works". Patrik
This is a digitally signed message part