Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/proposal

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:26:04 -0500 (EST)

James,

I don't think protocol extension offers more clarity than command response
extension. In the first approach the verb is provided in explicit way but
the object the verb is releted to is missing. Looking at the syntax you
attached it is not obvious that <rgp:restore> is a domain related
operation. In the second approach the object is clearly defined but the
verb is defined in implicit manner.

The protocol extension approach is more difficult to implement. With this
approach the rgp syntax will be more complex. The samples you attached to
your original proposal are incorrect and they offer very simplistic view
of necessary changes to rgp draft document. I pointed that out in my first
response. More complex rgp syntax can be used as a rough but objective
measure for determining amount of efforts required for implementing a
particular approach. Subjective references to a particular server
implementation attempts SHOULD NOT be used as a such measure.

You said in one of your responses in the thread that if protocol extension
is not adopted for rgp then "there is really no purpose for defining the
protocol extension in EPP". I disagree with that judgment. An example for
a usefull application of protocol extension would a be a new verb that is
not directly associated with existing object mappings. Something like poll
or hello command.

Janusz Sienkiewicz