Re: Standard Extensions

Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> 2012-01-18 13:51
> Let's assume for a moment that we have enough interest to form a working group focused on the development of a set of standard EPP extensions. If we had to start writing a charter today, what functionality would people most like to see included?
 
First and foremost, finding an incentive for current registry
operators to implement those extensions instead of their own
proprietary, otherwise we will just have even more extensions and even
less consolidations.
To me, it looks more difficult and more important, than creating the
extensions themselves.

At the very minimum any new extension created that is a factorisation
of extensions already existing should have a section explaining how it
will replace the current existing ones.

You will also soon, I think, hit the kind of question like "is this
not a limit of the protocol, and should'nt the protocol itself be
amended" aka EPP v2.0 ?
I'm thinking for example about result codes that each registry extend
in some way with new values, more or less properly...
Same for object status.

And for something a little more new, handling of contacts and DNSSEC
related content during a domain:transfer.

As for the extensions themselves, the whole section 3 of
http://www.deepcore.org/ietf/draft-mevzek-epp-implementor-experience-00.txt
may give ideas.
Or the source of the opensource client that made me write this draft
in the past, which contains numerous current registry extensions.

HTH,

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