Re: Domain check in draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt

Keith,

> As far as .com goes (and all the VeriSign-managed zones too), I think
>the best
> thing they could do for registrars is scrap their NameStore extension. I
>can't
> fathom the train of thought that made their developers think that'd be a
>good
> idea. It's up there with running .tv and .cc (thin) on the same EPP
>server as
> .jobs (thick), which messes up any chance clients have of autodetecting
>if the
> registry is thick or thin.

The NameStore extension is used for routing requests to the correct
back-end registry using a single EPP connection.  The question is whether
you would want to manage a separate session pool per TLD instead of
managing a single session pool per system and passing the NameStore
extension to indicate the logical registry to direct the request to.  The
train of thought is to provide a single destination for a set of EPP
services where there might be multiple services that support the same XML
namespaces (EPP mappings).  Getting meta-data on a TLD level is the goal
of the Registry EPP Mapping that I would like to create so that a
Registrar can query or be notified of the set of EPP mappings, EPP
extensions, features and policies supported on a per TLD level.  Knowing
only the supported EPP mappings and extensions (auto-detection) I don't
believe will be enough to fulfill the goal of automating the enablement of
a new TLD.    



-- 


JG



James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email protected]

703-948-3271
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

VerisignInc.com



On 1/6/12 1:36 PM, "Keith Gaughan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06/01/12 07:21, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>> If registries did harmonize more, it would make registrar work easier.
>
>After all, we're all in the business of selling domains, and it's not as
>if registries are in competition with one another. The faster I as a
>software engineer employed by a registrar can get integrated with you
>as a registry, the better for us both, and the more profit for all!
>
>> And more harmonization would also because the translation engines in the
>> registrars act more similar which implies the users would get more
>>similar
>> user interface when comparing registrars.
>
>Not to mention a smoother experience for all. But unfortunately politics
>comes into things and blinds everybody to what's to their mutual
>advantage.
>
>> Today, having similar user interfaces for for example .EU, .COM, .ORG
>>and
>> .SE is not easy.
>
>EURid are, due to gradual registrar pressure, moving towards a less
>'special'
>variation of EPP. That's a positive development.
>
>As far as .com goes (and all the VeriSign-managed zones too), I think the
>best
>thing they could do for registrars is scrap their NameStore extension. I
>can't
>fathom the train of thought that made their developers think that'd be a
>good
>idea. It's up there with running .tv and .cc (thin) on the same EPP
>server as
>.jobs (thick), which messes up any chance clients have of autodetecting
>if the
>registry is thick or thin.
>
>.se is on my (long) list of ccTLDs to interface with, so I can't remember
>how
>much of a pain that's going to be.
>
>> The TLDs are so completely different in the epp
>> implementation that they are...hmm...different.
>
>The worst of it is the pride some registry operators have in how different
>they are. I've read stuff by non-EPP ccTLDs registrars who practically
>boast
>about how they have their own interface and how EPP couldn't possibly suit
>their use cases.
>
>-- 
>Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer
>PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. <http://blacknight.com/>
>12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland
>Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845
>_______________________________________________
>provreg mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg