Re: [ietf-provreg] Presentation on EPP present and future

[James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>]

Title: Re: [ietf-provreg] Presentation on EPP present and future

I agree with Ulrich.  

I believe that it’s impossible for all of the registries to agree on a single business model and a single way of doing things.  Compromise had to be made even with the standard mappings (hostObj/hostAttr, thick/thin, etc.) with the use of optional features, so over time additional business ideas will naturally result in new extensions.  It is the technologist’s responsibility to try to meet the business needs without causing interface issues like updating the base mappings themselves, without creating new mappings for the same mapping objects, and without creating required extensions except for specific cases.  Every registry has had it’s own unique set of requirements.  The ability of EPP to define new mappings is extremely useful and I don’t believe is at issue.  We could look to create standard mappings for Registry objects like Registrar, User, Registrar Contact, and billing if needed.  It’s the extensions made to the standard mappings that is of most interest for combining and standardization.   I’m not a fan of updating the base mappings unless there is a compelling reason to do so, but instead focus on the set of extensions that have been created for consolidation.   

As stated in the EPP BOF extensions are not evil but a natural result of using EPP for different business models.  There is no way that we’re all going to agree on a single business model, but it would be a useful exercise to work on some standard set of extensions.  

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.

---

From: Ulrich Wisser <liste@publisher.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:30:17 -0400
To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Presentation on EPP present and future

Hello,

EPP is in fact *very* extensible. The problem (in my opinion) is that
most registry are really new to EPP when they start to develop an EPP
server. At that point it is very easy to get lost in an extension
frenzy. And once the whole server is build around the new schema it
almost impossible to revert to standard schema.

Then there is the part that EPP does not support business objects. There
are no accounts, no registrar objects, no billing data, ...

EPP has no way of specifying registry rules, e.g. max. number of ns per
domain, ...

The nice thing about all the extensions in the wild is, that we are now
seeing real world business needs for EPP. We could try to filter out a
common set of extensions needs and create one or more new standard
extensions.

I can see a bunch of work for a WG here.

/Ulrich


--
Help building the worlds most comprehensive list of judo dojos.
Put your dojo on the list at http://JudoWorldMap.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se