Re: Changes we'd make to EPP
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:38:48PM -0600, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote: > That leaves you with out of band, why is that better? Perhaps because EPP is badly tailored for bulk operations. I can think of ways in which it might have been otherwise, but the WG decided not to go that way. Since the protocol is poorly adapted to such operations, why try to force them in there? Or, put it another way: EPP is by no means the only relationship between an EPP repository operator and the clients: much of the system depends on pre-existing relationships anyway. Therefore, it seems at least as good to use those other communication channels for bulk operations as to add features to EPP for this. I am not saying that it is better or worse; but that there are other options, and before one is going to change deployed systems to deal with new desired behaviour, one needs an argument that alterations to those deployed systems is the right approach to satisfy the desire. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg