Re: EPP extensions working group

On 7/31/13 1:43 PM, "Patrik Fältström" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
>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.

I think this is a key point - we ideally need to stop the *proliferation*
of new extensions that do the same thing as existing extensions (or slight
variations thereof).  Yes, there may still be 3 different ways to send
some information, but perhaps we can prevent there from being 15 different
ways.  But we can't do that without documentation of what the existing
extensions are.   

This reminds me of the earlier days of SIP when it seemed every SIP
service provider was inventing their own header field to carry some type
of information within their private network.  As they sought to
interconnect to other private networks and exchange information, they
discovered that different providers were passing similar info using
different headers.  An IANA registry was available (
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/sip-parameters.xhtml#sip-par
ameters-2 ) and now contains documentation of different headers.  There
are still multiple headers that pass similar kinds of information, but
people at service providers can at least view the various choices and
potentially choose to use an existing header before going off and creating
their own.

There does not seem to be an IANA registry of EPP extensions - should one
perhaps be created?

Dan



_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg