Re: a question for the list

I second Michael.  The sponsorship query service could be defined using a
new EPP Mapping and the info command (filters defined in the command
supporting sponsorship information across multiple entity types).  This is
just one example of a use case that could go up the standards track if there
was enough cross-cutting need.  I don¹t personally see a need for this but
others might.  I wouldn¹t touch the base protocol unless it was absolutely
necessary, but to focus on the set of custom mappings and extensions that
have been created and are being created to see if there is more general
interest of moving them up the standards track.  We have many custom
mappings and extensions that might be of interest as well.  Collaboration by
an EPP Working Group would help address the issue of the growing set of
custom EPP mappings and extensions.

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
[email protected]
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.



From: Michael Young <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:58:26 -0500
To: Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>, EPP Provreg <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list

I hear your arguments Andrew and I don't disagree. However I just haven't
seen any issues raised here that says we MUST or even SHOULD change the core
protocol.  The listed issues thus far could all be dealt with using
extensions AND I do agree with forming a concentrated effort around managing
extensions.

To my mind, any changes with the core protocol involves risk and cost to
registrars and registries.  This is why a lot of consideration was given to
the extensions in the first place - to avoid having to jump immediately into
core protocol revision work whenever a new use case comes up.  The real
problem I am hearing here is that we (by "we" I mean the EPP community)
haven't done a good job managing extension work. We need to fix that.


Best Regards,

Michael Young



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January-19-10 9:05 AM
To: 'EPP Provreg'
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 07:54:10AM -0500, Michael Young wrote:
> can't help but think that if we were talking about this level of change
with
> DNS, more than a few operators would get very concerned.

While I am obviously sympathetic to your argument, using DNS as an
analogue won't work: it's too different.  The DNS is involved in just
about every interaction on the Internet, and it has to be deployed on
nearly every Internet node.  Moreover, most DNS deployments (stub
resolvers) are on the machines of people we have no way of reaching
out and talking to.  Finally, the DNS is an old protocol in Internet
terms, and therefore there is a lot of opportunity for small
carbuncles to have grown on it and become part of the _de facto_
standard, even though said growths are not actually found in any RFC.

None of those is true of EPP: the community is still relatively small,
and because EPP is a two-way protocol with a handshake step and so on,
it is possible to warn clients of an impending change to the protocol.
While provisioning in the DNS is pretty important, it's not core
infrastructure the way resolution in the DNS is, because it's not
directly invoked for every Internet transaction.  And finally, since
the protocol isn't that old, the opportunities for it to have grown
significant differences from the RFCs are fewer (and such cases can,
in any case, be called errors without causing half the installed base
to qualify thereby as "broken").

So, the risk in changing EPP is obviously one of cost and some
disruption; but not "time to reformat the Internet", which is what
major changes to the DNS might entail if not done just right.  In the
DNS, there are some pretty big rewards we'd like to go after, but the
risk is too great so we don't make the changes.  Similar rewards, if
they were available in EPP, might be worth the risk.

A


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


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