Re: Standard Extensions

On 23/08/12 14:00, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Klaus Malorny
>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:35 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [provreg] Standard Extensions
>>
>> On 23/08/12 13:48, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> Serious question: as a registrar, why do you do business with
>> registries that give you nightmares?
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>> For a living? For market requirements? Think for an US-based registrar
>> that would not offer .com/.net domains because they think that
>> Verisign's implementation would be a nightmare. What would be the
>> probability for them to survive?
> 
> Verisign probably isn't a good example because we have contractual
> obligations to implement the protocol as specified in the RFCs.

Aside from some relatively minor annoyances, if all registries behaved
more like VeriSign's EPP implementation (NameStore extension and
mingling of thick and thin registries on the same EPP endpoint aside),
I'd be much happier with life.

> 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. 

That implies that there's a choice in the matter. Typically, there's
little choice in the matter but to integrate regardless.

Keep in mind that my criticisms and--I'm sure--those of my fellow
registrars--are not directed at VeriSign, but at registry operators in
general, be they operating small ccTLDs or behemoth gTLDs.

> 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.

That's down to a lack of co-ordination on the part of registrars, best
as I can tell, though individually we have been able to browbeat some
registries into behaving better.

With large registry operators, is much more difficult because of the
degree of inertia involved and the fact that only massive concerted
action would be likely to yield results.

In the case of ccTLD operators, as they have a monopoly over something
tied to the country they operate in, the customer cost of any action
far outweighs any benefit that might be had from getting the registry
to reform their ways. Unless, that is, the registrars in question happen
to manage much of the zone.

-- 
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