Too much 'E'? was Re: Lists and EPP

At 13:32 +0200 6/8/11, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>People have, we see now, used the "e" part of epp a bit too much.

Can you quantify this?  (Asking out of 
curiosity.)  As in, has there been a failure in 
the protocol?  Has the goal of interoperability 
failed?

Between 2009 and 2010 I poked into EPP 2.0 and 
found that everyone was happy with EPP 1.0 and 
the plethora of extensions, especially with 
Patrick Mevzek (I believe) has implemented the 
bulk of them in one distribution.

>And I dare to say that as I as Area Director when epp was invented could
>have pushed back more, but I did not. So I blame myself.

As one of the co-chairs, I'm willing to pass the blame on. ;)

At 13:55 +0200 6/8/11, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>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.

I continued in the thread and found this.

I thought the same as you expressed when I did 
some organization for a non-BoF at the Anaheim 
IETF.  Architecturally speaking, I had some 
misgivings about the path EPP had taken.  From 
March 2010 until May 2010 some efforts ramped up 
as a result of the IETF-related meeting, 
including a new mailing list started called 
regops.  In early May, in a CENTR Tech meeting 
some preliminary results were presented - mostly 
the estimate of what it would take to "fix" EPP. 
This presentation was a follow up to a discussion 
during the October 2009 CENTR Tech meeting that 
kind of kicked off this short study.

The discussion at the May 2009 CENTR Tech meeting 
came down to "okay, well, EPP 1.0 is sufficient." 
I took this to mean - in the operations world, 
EPP is just fine.  Operators are satisfied that 
there is code to do all the versions needed.  To 
an operator having two different "redemption 
grace period" extensions, one for COM and one for 
BIZ, is not a problem.  Maybe as an architect it 
sounds ugly - but then who are protocols built 
for, the architects or the operators?

After that meeting I abandoned any upgrade/update 
to EPP and learned to live with the way it is. 
Code rules, specs aren't as important.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Now, don't say I'm always complaining.
Wait, that's a complaint, isn't it?
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg