Re: registries, XML & EPP (again)

Klaus Malorny wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> while EURid has updated their specs in a thankworthy way, this still 
> has a slightly bad aftertaste, as even the namespace of the framing 
> XML (i.e. the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" namespace) was required 
> to be changed due to the introduction of new commands. I have the 
> feeling that quite a lot of new registrars that download open source 
> EPP implementations will have to learn the hard way that EPP is not 
> always EPP. That way, it could be questionable whether EURid's 
> protocol even deserves the name "EPP" at all.
>
I agree that we should have used Protocol Extension for adding our extra
commands, but it's probably a bit late for that.

> On the other hand, while EPP does provide a legal means to create 
> additional commands via the second level "<epp:extension>" element, 
> one should rethink the fixed command set of the "commandType" schema 
> type when an update of EPP is considered. Having an additional command 
> as an extension outside of the "<command>" element, it is not clear 
> that the typical command/response behaviour shall apply to this 
> command as well.

How about adding an empty <extra/> element to the choice in commandType
for all the extra commands that one wants to define:

<command>
    <extra/>
    <extension>
       <eurid:ext
          xmlns:eurid="http://www.eurid.eu/xml/epp/eurid-1.0"
          xsi:schemaLocation="...">
          <eurid:trade>
             <eurid:domain
                xmlns:domain="..."
                xsi:schemaLocation="...">
                <eurid:registrant>epp11</eurid:registrant>
                <eurid:trDate>2010-10-10T10:10:10.0Z</eurid:trDate>
                ...
             </eurid:domain>
          </eurid:trade>
       </eurid:ext>
    </extension>
   <clTRID>abc-456</clTRID>
</command>

This way it would be clear that the typical command/response behaviour
applies.

Maarten Bosteels
DNS BE Developer