Re: Standard Extensions
Patrick Mevzek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Organization | Dot And Co |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> 2012-01-19 13:18 > Having said that, maybe it makes sense to create a standard extension for additional result codes and status values. I believe so. And then, if you make it happen that everyone switch from their current homegrown version to this extension, you may find out that all registries or almost all of them need this extension, which in a way shows that the feature should be in the core protocol. But things will technically work out the same way while in an extension. *If* everyone switches to it. Which I'm far to believe. Hence another argument to include it in some EPPv2 if there is some work on that one day, because then the feature will be "free" when you switch to this version, no more extension. And in that way it is really an incentive (one extension less to code for registrars). -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg