Re: Changes we'd make to EPP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of MICHAEL YOUNG
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:53 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] Changes we'd make to EPP
> 
> 
> I completely agree with the balance you are talking about. No one wants
> to
> meddle lightly with deployed systems.  However, maintaining
> standardization means (I think) keeping a protocol relevant to the use
> cases that evolve.  We are talking about addressing bulk communications
> around an EPP object in this case - so I think its fair enough to
> consider
> short-comings in the protocol.  EPP probably should have had more focus
> right from the start in addressing bulk operations.

The use case for bulk operations *was* carefully considered - and not selected for inclusion in the core protocol. It's now 10 years later and no one has written an extension draft that describes that functionality. Maybe someone who feels the need should think about documenting an approach in an I-D.

I was going to suggest that text from the expired XRP draft(s) might be a good place to start, but I don't see the words "bulk" or "batch" anywhere in draft-brunner-xrp-00. Maybe Eric can explain how the concept was addressed.

On a slightly different topic, all this debate about contact synchronization is making me laugh. Be careful what you wish for, thick registry proponents! :)

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