Re: Lists and EPP
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8 jun 2011, at 13.51, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > The hard part about what we were doing is that we were trying to produce a protocol to automate a multitude of existing disparate registration processes and policies. That's not a good starting point for being able to reach agreement on one way and one way only. Given the operating environment I don't think we could have ever produced anything at all without extensibility. > > I still have "that's policy!" nightmares... :) Yeah, you are the hero that really never gave up!!! What irritates me is though that there are a number of extensions that are made slightly differently, with slightly different rules on data format and of course that registries use their own extensions even though they are very similar, or identical, to what other people are doing. So yes, we needed extensions, I just think registries could have done better if they coordinated a bit more the standardization of the extensions, instead of creating one epp extension per registry/domain name combination. To conclude: I agree that epp is probably not the most efficient protocol to do sync:ing, but I rather see one syncing extension than "one per registry". That was my (only) point. Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg