To:
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Cc:
EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:20:07 +0100
Authentication-Results:
ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-Reply-To:
<A0018B43-25D1-4388-A10E-B95DA259B911@cisco.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list
On 18 jan 2010, at 17.21, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 18 jan 2010, at 16.56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Since I'm playing devil's advocate, however (and let me emphasise that
>> I'm pushing mostly because I think the best way to make a strong
>> argument is to find all its weak points and press on them), where were
>> these voices when the protocol was moving along the standards track?
>
> In short, I did rise my voice exactly like this, but the document moved forward, and I thought I was in the minority. I also explicitly then brought up the issue that exist that some policy issues are not well defined, for example on what a transfer (of a domain name) implies regarding sponsor of the contact object that is the holder of the domain.
>
> The conclusion then was that epp _as_defined_ was implemented as nice and clean and obviously works.
>
> The question now is whether we should do eppV2, so I think the questions are different. Or, that I was told ;-)
Maybe my wording was badly phrased. And I feel I must clarify:
I do NOT think the move of epp to standard was wrong. The protocol is in wide use. It is usable. We have multiple implementations.
I DO think we should do eppV2 because the deployment and implementation can be better. I claim we can move more today developed extensions to epp to become standard parts of the protocol -- and that way make deployment easier.
Patrik
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se