Re: registries, XML & EPP (again)

janusz wrote:
> Klaus Malorny wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Klaus,
> if "commandType" schema type was extended as you are proposing then EPP 
> protocol would have more than one way of creating new EPP commands. What 
> should be then the policy for protocol implementers for choosing one way 
> over the other? Do you have any particular criteria in mind?
> 
> Janusz
> 


Hi Janusz,

well, as I said, that they behave like other commands, i.e. that the answer is a 
<response> element with the known structure.

regards,

Klaus

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