Re: EPP extensions working group
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:43:14 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 31 jul 2013, at 12:15, Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > so changing them for the sake of change probably wouldn't go down very well True, but new extensions are "invented" by registrars if not every week so every quarter. Not having them documented somewhere would be sad, and increases the risk new extensions are invented. Whether people are interested in "merging" their extensions, and because of that change their spec/implementation/whatever is a separate story. On the registrar side, some such changes might be received easily ("oh, .XX is now as .XY and no longer special -- great!"") while on the registry side that is of course more problematic. And if the "merge" implies also registrars must change for both registries, that might also be troublesome. MY reason for spending energy on these things are: - Get the existing extensions documented as I-Ds (can be informational -- no change control handed over). - By having documentation as I-D minimize the risk future extensions solving same problem is created. - Increase the likelyhood (from zero) that there will be merge between extensions. Patrik _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg