Re: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs

> Not fun, but there are tons of similar situations (regarding 
> validation of attribute values) that also lack documentation (and lack 
> of specification in the epp spec), so "to make things work", there is 
> a lot of "trial and error" in the actual algorithm implemented on top 
> of the epp protocol.

Yup. So the baggage that (modernly) goes with "standards track" and the 
specification experience, and the contractual regime which existed when 
we started are at odds, and the awkwardness isn't diminished, in my 
opinion, by the present changes to the contractual regime.

If we were specifying something as generic as a provisioning protocol 
for arbitrary registries, rather than the past, or currently 
contemplated ICANN contracting gTLDs, augmented by some ccTLDs, to which 
those special cases would tastefully decorate with their special 
extensions, then the (modern) standards track requirements wouldn't seem 
so otherworldly.

I'll send implementation comments separately, eventually. Remind me if I 
haven't by Stockholm.
 
Eric