Re: a question for the list

On 18 jan 2010, at 17.21, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 18 jan 2010, at 16.56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
>> Since I'm playing devil's advocate, however (and let me emphasise that
>> I'm pushing mostly because I think the best way to make a strong
>> argument is to find all its weak points and press on them), where were
>> these voices when the protocol was moving along the standards track?
> 
> In short, I did rise my voice exactly like this, but the document moved forward, and I thought I was in the minority. I also explicitly then brought up the issue that exist that some policy issues are not well defined, for example on what a transfer (of a domain name) implies regarding sponsor of the contact object that is the holder of the domain.
> 
> The conclusion then was that epp _as_defined_ was implemented as nice and clean and obviously works.
> 
> The question now is whether we should do eppV2, so I think the questions are different. Or, that I was told ;-)

Maybe my wording was badly phrased. And I feel I must clarify:

I do NOT think the move of epp to standard was wrong. The protocol is in wide use. It is usable. We have multiple implementations.

I DO think we should do eppV2 because the deployment and implementation can be better. I claim we can move more today developed extensions to epp to become standard parts of the protocol -- and that way make deployment easier.

    Patrik


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email protected]