Re: Has the EPP world really changed?

In 2009 and 2010 within CENTR Tech there was an informal look into 
this.  (Note the dates...)  The result of a cursory examination of 
whether EPP was sufficient as it was or was there a need for EPP 2.0 
was that EPP plus the extensions were acceptable for two reasons. 
One, there was software out there available that handled the 
extensions, the code written by Patrick Mevzek (I believe) was cited. 
Two, the cost of having to retool all the EPP servers out there for a 
new protocol would be a disruptive cost that was not (clearly) worth 
the benefit.

What also happened then, dating to a meeting at an IETF in spring of 
2010, was a lot of registry operators became introduced to this list 
and through it and meetings, to the originators of the protocol. 
Scott Hollenbeck was able to address the operator community and help 
revive the notion of correctly extending EPP.  At the time there were 
thoughts that EPP could not be extended to do certain things, after 
some consultation and publicity of the "forgotten" EPP RFC (3735), 
fears about extending EPP subsided.

(The list was set up for a WG that was in place from 2000 until 2003 
or 2004.  The domain name industry really bloomed after that time, 
when there was no "publicity" for the list.  So many operators were 
never aware of it.)

The debate rages on whether there are too many extensions or not. 
EPP was designed to be extended but there's the opinion that 
something so extended demonstrates that it was too weak to begin 
with.  Personally, I don't cling to the latter idea.  So long as the 
code for an extension is available or can be created, to me it 
doesn't matter if the code is for an extension or the base.

At 10:59 +0200 8/24/12, Ucom.ch - Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Following the recent discussion on EPP extensions, some experience I 
>made in the past crossed my mind; i.e.
>
>since 2005 I have been trying to convince first Registries, later 
>Registrars to harmonize similar use cases and standardize them as 
>EPP extensions. However, so far most of the Registries and 
>Registrars have seen little incentive to put effort into 
>harmonization of EPP extensions.
>
>Some typical answers were:
>
>* Registries:
>
>   "Why should we go through the effort of standardizing and
>   implementing standard EPP Extensions, if we can just define
>   our own stuff and our Registars have to implement it anyways?"
>
>* (Big) Registrars:
>
>   "Our system anyways talks to most of the Registries. So, why
>   should we put effort in standardization, which only helps our
>   competitors to build much simpler EPP Client systems?"
>
>
>Has the world really changed or are we about to run into the same 
>barriers that have prevented EPP Extensions from being standardized 
>in the past decade?
>
>
>All the best,
>  Bernie
>
>--
>
>http://ucom.ch/
>Tech Consulting for Internet Technology
>
>_______________________________________________
>provreg mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg