Re: Standard Extensions

On 23/08/12 13:42, Luis Muñoz wrote:
> 
> 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?
>
> (*) 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.

I proposed this very thing on June 16th last year. I still think it's
worthwhile to at least have a baseline that a registry would have to
conform to in order to work, even if there have to be certain opt-outs
for things required by the registry's character--.tel and its handling
of nameservers being an example--though such deviations ought to be
minimised.

K.

-- 
Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer
PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381
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