Re: registries, XML & EPP (again)

At 18:01 +0200 10/18/05, Klaus Malorny wrote:

>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 ...

What bothers me is that there is a second instance of a registry, in 
this other case, avoiding EPP and instead building their own 
protocol.  I am not making a judgement call on the wisdom of 
prefering a home grown effort over a standard, but rather am 
concerned that the standard wasn't "good" enough for them.

See: 
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentations/pdf/ripe51-enum-epp.pdf

The talk is somewhat mistitled in the agenda, why DENIC didn't use 
EPP for ENUM.  The reason is simply that DENIC doesn't use EPP for 
anything.  (;))  From slide 7 onwards though is the interesting stuff 
- why DENIC doesn't use EPP for anything.

This is a cry for "use the IETF for what it is for."  I would hope to 
see a detailed critique outlining why EPP is failing to meet the 
needs of the community come in, and not a feeling that EPP should be 
shunned.  The definition of EPP by the IETF is not to be taken as a 
royal edict.  It should be the collective wit and wisdom of us wise 
guys.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

True story:
Only a routing "expert" would fly London->Minneapolis->Dallas->Minneapolis
to get home from a conference.  (Cities changed to protect his identity.)