Re: Standard Extensions

On 23 Aug 2012, at 14:00, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> Verisign probably isn't a good example because we have contractual  
> obligations to implement the protocol as specified in the RFCs. If  
> implementing the protocol as specified is a nightmare maybe the  
> registrar shouldn't be a registrar, and Verisign can be held  
> accountable if contractual obligations are unmet. I see your point,  
> though - a registrar has to meet customer demand.

Scott, I doubt Klaus was saying that doing business with Verisign is a  
nightmare for registrars.

What both of you are agreeing is that registars may well be forced to  
do business with nightmare TLD registries because of customer demand  
or other layer-9 and up factors.

> If money motivates registrars to support and enable inconsistent  
> implementations then there would have to be a greater financial  
> incentive for them to boycott non-conforming registries. I'm not  
> aware of any.

FYI registrars chose not to sell .tel because it was "non-conforming"  
for them. The EPP side was just fine: no issues there at all. The  
registrars that walked away generally did so because .tel didn't fit  
with their business models which were based on selling web hosting,  
warehousing names and pay-per-click adverts. The financial incentives  
to "just keep on doing what we do in .com" won. The extent of EPP  
conformance (or not) didn't really figure in those calculations.

The point I'm making is there are many flavours of conformance in the  
registry-registrar model. It would be nice if one of them could be a  
"core" EPP feature set which a registrar could be sure was fully  
supported across all EPP compliant registries. That would mean the  
industry could in principle have toolkits that don't change if/when  
the back-end provider or TLD changes and maybe do away with TLD- 
specific EPP accreditation and OT&E. The lack of commonality between  
EPP compliant registries must be a business and technical nightmare  
for registrars.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg