Re: Standard Extensions
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D57E99F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [provreg] Standard Extensions > > 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. We've actually considered that question more than once in recent years. I'm still unconvinced that there's a need to reopen the core protocol, especially for niche data structures that can be specified in an extension. I don't yet see the benefit outweighing the cost. Having said that, maybe it makes sense to create a standard extension for additional result codes and status values. Scott _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg