Re: EPP extensions working group

Dan, all,

> 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

with the current extension regime there is little to prevent similar or
overlapping extensions.  Contrary to other protocols there is almost always
a single server side implementation since extensions reflect registry
policy.

> ways.  But we can't do that without documentation of what the existing
> extensions are.   

Necessary, but not sufficient. Extension follows policy, so the process
would have to start earlier.  The existence (and development) of different policies
is a feature, not a bug. Yes, even with nTLDs.

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

What you're looking for is at odds with the purpose of an IANA registry.
For one, there is a URN registry added to by all EPP documents so far,
operating at "first come, first served" - well, "specification required".
Definitely not a quality gate and collision avoidance only to the extent
URN identifiers are concerns, not avoiding content overlap.

What you're looking for is either a catalog of implementations at various
eligibility levels, which would once have been a task for the RFC Editor
or some applicability statement or or something else that's probably beyond
the scope of the IETF.

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