Re: Standard Extensions
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 23 aug 2012, at 14:22, Günther Mair <[email protected]> wrote: > One more explanation could be the a transition from their previous, local policies towards EPP. Let me change that a bit to "One more explanation could be implementing their policies with epp." But, as you say Scott, the end result might be that registrars do not implement epp for the registries, and instead move towards the registries that do have synchronized epp implementations. And that should create, hopefully, an interest for the registries to synchronize between themselves. At least for the minimum necessary extensions. Once again, I have no problems what so ever with whatever extensions created. As long as they are implemented by many registrars. And yes, I was the Area Director in charge when the 'e' in epp was proposed from the community and also accepted by IETF as a whole. With the knowledge I have now, I would have pushed back a bit harder...or at least required some wording in epp so that it would be more clear for registrars whether a registry implement baseline epp or not. I.e. whether some private extension is needed to be a registrar. Today, one can claim to support epp but at the same time require implementation of extensions that are private. What do you all think is needed to be able to claim one implements epp (on server and client side respectively)? How is implementation to be validated? Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg