Re: Has the EPP world really changed?

At 16:20 +0200 8/24/12, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>On 24 aug 2012, at 16:13, Edward Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>  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.
>
>So, if registry A have extension f(A) and 
>registry B later when implementing same or 
>similar thing chooses to have extension f(B), 
>the fact that registrars have to then implement 
>both f(A) and f(B) instead of just f(A) does not 
>concern you?

No.  But I'm not registrar. ;)  (Drum roll please.)

In attempts to elicit responses from registrars 
(which was not entirely unsuccessful), there was 
never an overwhelming "yes" to that question. 
Lightly put, so long as there was a comprehensive 
piece of code they could download, it wasn't a 
problem.  In some cases, the registrars weren't 
implementing anything, so the number of 
extensions didn't matter.  They just got the code 
and put it in place.

Note - "not entirely unsuccessful" means a few 
talked to me but the sample set was biased and 
small.  But non-zero.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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