Subject: RE: EPP Compliance (Was Re: lastVerified: optional vs. extension)

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:00:09 -0500

> This discussion warrants a separate thread since I
> believe it begs a clear answer to a fundamental
> question: what does it mean by EPP compliance, in the
> context of domain name registrations?

I'm not sure that the term "EPP compliance" has _any_ meaning.  Once we have
RFCs it will be possible for implementations to claim conformance with EPP
RFCs xxxx, yyyy, zzzz, etc., but that claim will have to be tied to the
RFCs.  An implementation can conform to the core and transport RFCs, and it
might conform to some other domain mapping specification if one is ever
published by someone else.  In my mind, conformance is a measure of
implementation adherence to some published specification(s), and we can't
stop someone from trying to write their own specifications outside of the
IETF.

> For example, can another domain mapping, which is 95%
> the same with the current document, but with 5%
> differences (not through extension, but via
> modification), claim that it is EPP compliant for
> domain registration? I would not think so, but I would
> like to hear what the WG think.

Such a document could claim to be a valid EPP mapping.  One could also claim
that an implementation of that mapping conforms to whatever RFCs the core
and transport specifications are eventually published as.  One could not
claim, however, that it conforms to whatever RFC the WG domain mapping is
published as.  It might conform to the deviant domain mapping, but that's
all.

-Scott-

---

From: Hong Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:12:22 -0800 (PST)

Scott,

Thanks for the comments. I agree with your points. I
just want to validate them on the list. I think that
goes a long way to clarifying mis-conceptions that
some people may claim. 

So what does it mean by implementing EPP standards by
IETF for domain registries? Does it mean that it
_must_ implement the following EPP "core" documents as
is when they become RFCs?

- EPP base
- Domain mapping
- Contact mapping
- Host mapping
- TCP mapping (???)

Of course this is the minimum set of specifications.
One can always implement additional features as
extensions to domain/contact/host objects. 

[I don't know if TCP mapping should be included in the
minimum set or not.]

--Hong

--- "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> domain mapping, but that's

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com