Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:40:05AM +0200, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> 
> 
>>favourite car brand. Both won't separate the language field into a common 
>>extension that just takes care about the contact's language, which would, 
>>on the other hand, be the only correct way from a protocol's perspective. 
>>The uncontrolled extensibility of a protocol is the protocol's death. Take, 
> 
> 
> This argument is nonsense.  It is simply a dogmatic insistence that
> people can't compromise to make general operation smoother for
> everyone, even if the cost of that is a slightly greater burden for
> particular individuals.  If that is true, the IETF is a complete
> waste of time.
> 

I didn't say that. People can compromise. If they believe they have a benefit 
from it, directly or indirectly. They won't if there aren't enough incentives.

> [...]
>>There are likely no two implementations of the [whois] protocol by
>>two unrelated entities that are compatible. Those registrars who
>>have implemented ICANN's Registrar Transfer Policy for thin
>>registries know what this means. So from a protocol's perspective,
>>it is the best to nail down everything, and if any extensions are
>>required, to have a standardization body to define them. 
> 
> 
> By this logic, HTML is also a failure, because of the ease with which
> people were able to ignore the recommendations of the W3C and create
> horrors like <blink> or <bgsound> tags.

Hmm. Maybe you don't know. HTML is dead. HTML is the prototype of a failed 
standard in many ways. W3C is working for many, many years now to fix that.

> X- headers in email are also
> an abomination, because nobody can control them and so systems use
> them in ways that aren't approved by your favourite official
> standards dictator.  I don't see that such positions are tenable. 

Well, I can send e-mails to nearly everyone connected to the Internet without 
using X-headers. But I can't register a .us, .coop, .eu domain, for example, 
without using the appropriate proprietary extensions. I can do this only for 
vanilla registries, mostly gTLDs. There is a difference at least to me.

By the way, you are the one who wants to dictate every registry to use a 
standard, namely EPP. I just question the value of a standard that is 
practically incomplete for a non-negligible number of registries in the one 
hand, and too limited for them at the same time in the other hand.

regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de             Tel. +49 231 9703 0