Re: Launch Phase EPP Extension Version 02 Posted

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:40:44PM +0100, Gavin Brown wrote:
> On 16/08/2012 16:35, Wil Tan wrote:
> > Yes, that's why I said it's not elegant, but my (possibly wrong)
> > assumption was that the textual description won't be used by registrars
> > for automation.
> 
> It seems more likely to me that registries would decide to overload this
> field and then compel registrars to create business logic to handle it.
> 
> However, I don't think that his has happened with the <status> element
> for domains, contacts, and hosts (unless someone wants to correct me),
> so perhaps I am overstating the risks.

What's happened in those cases is that the registry operators create their own
extensions to fit the extra semantics they--being the beautiful and unique
snowflakes that they are--feel they absolutely can't possibly live without.

You're not at all overstating the risks. The thing that gets missed in this kind
of discussion is that when a registry has discretion over the implementation of
some element of EPP or a non-optional extension or object mapping, they
effectively multiply the amount of work that needs to be done to implement that
by the number of registrars integrated with them. The more that can be done so
that registrars don't have to implement dozens of subtly-incompatible variations
on the same spec.

K.

-- 
Keith Gaughan, Development Lead
PGP/GPG key ID: 82AC3634
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. <http://blacknight.com/>
12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland
Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg