Re: Standard Extensions
Theo Kramer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 25 Jan 2012, at 4:10 PM, Gould, James wrote: > Jay, > > <4. Currently EPP *defines* a data model for domain name registrations, > which fits gTLDs and some ccTLDs but not all (note, it does fit the .nz > data model). If the <ICANN data model changes at any point then amending > EPP will require lots of effort all round. It might be better to pre-empt > this by moving to an alternative <approach where the EPP protocol is used > to *describe* the registration data expected. If then it was agreed that > all gTLD registrations must include say a <registrant type as they have in > .uk, then this could be added merely by updating the description the > servers send rather than the protocol. and > On 1/24/12 7:02 PM, "Jay Daley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And finally something for us to think about: >> >> 4. Currently EPP *defines* a data model for domain name registrations, >> which fits gTLDs and some ccTLDs but not all (note, it does fit the .nz >> data model). If the ICANN data model changes at any point then amending >> EPP will require lots of effort all round. It might be better to >> pre-empt this by moving to an alternative approach where the EPP protocol >> is used to *describe* the registration data expected. If then it was >> agreed that all gTLD registrations must include say a registrant type as >> they have in .uk, then this could be added merely by updating the >> description the servers send rather than the protocol. +1 - the co.za (and .za) team would be prepared to provide input into this model. -- Regards Theo _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg