Re: Standard Extensions

On 23/08/12 15:00, 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.
>

I mentioned Verisign as an example because of its dominance in the US market 
(more than tenfold of domains to the next competitor AFAIK), and not because 
potential extra implementation efforts.

But as you mention: I don't want to start a Verisign bashing here, but I ask you 
to be a bit more realistic: due to various concessions to Verisign by ICANN, 
esp. the allowance for keeping the thin registry model, supporting .com/.net 
causes extra effort to the registrar. For example, the development and operation 
of a Whois server is not for free. The Whois issue also becomes a real nightmare 
in the context of IRTP due to the uncounted different output formats and access 
limitations of the Whois servers of the other registrars. This might go away 
with the efforts of ICANN to establish a next generation Whois protocol and to 
provide an open-source reference implementation, but this is all still up in the 
air.

Besides this, the implementation IRTP the WDRP service is an extra effort, too. 
While this cannot be directly debited to the effort for the registrar support of 
the Verisign registry, these two services would have made more sense to be 
located at the registry instead of at the registrar, but this was impossible 
with the thin registry model.

>
> Scott
>

Regards,

Klaus

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg