Re: registries, XML & EPP (again)

Klaus Malorny <[email protected]> 2005-10-18 18:31
> 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.

These ``small'' differences can easily be hidden in the client,
provided that it is flexible enough.

Thus, for me, they do not show that there are problems in EPP. Just
that people have different needs, and that it is impossible to find a
solution that works for anyone. It creates a greater burden on
registrar/client software, but, in my view, nothing impossible to
achieve.

At least, this is the kind of view I try to have when working on my
own implementation (which, BTW will soon fully support EURid and, at
the same time, any other EPP registry).

Maybe now that more people are aware of EPP, even if they finally do
not decide to use it for whatever reasons, they can participate even
more towards the next iteration, and this is why I totally agree with
the idea of putting in written what problems/differences they see, to
make sure it will taken into account.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>