Re: Standard Extensions
Luis Muñoz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > 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? IMHO, one step in the right direction would be to have a community maintained(*) set of published test cases. Passing those cases would give you the baseline functionality. Coverage would have to be enough so as to provide basic functionality. (*) I'm using "community maintained" as a way to try and prevent single players from bending the set of test cases in their favor. Picture a registry with enough resources so as to fill the test case list with cases that they easily pass. This would require other registries wishing to play that game to invest in implementing all those features, that they or their customers might not need. For instance, there should be a minimum n of registries and registrars implementing a feature (ie, passing that test) in order for it to be adopted into the test case set. That would force registries and registrars that want to see a feature added to the set, to lobby others into implementing them. Best regards -lem _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg