Subject: RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:46:47 -0500

> We already have a lot of registry-specific and inflexible 
> stuff in EPP, mostly, 
> but not limited to, the handling of name servers. EPP is 
> clearly designed after 
> Network Solution's registry model (before they were forced to 
> open the registry 
> to others), which is far from being generic or prototypical 
> for the existing 
> ccTLDs around the world.

If this were true and the model were not of more general interest other
members of the WG would have shot it down long ago.  As I remember the
discussion the WG felt that the model was the most reasonable compromise
when all the alternatives (including the one you proposed) were considered.

-Scott-

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:25:06 +0100

> when all the alternatives (including the one you proposed) were considered.

Hi Scott,

you do know that the world's largest ccTLD (.de) has a different model currently 
and that it works fine. But you chose to ignore it. We had long discussions 
about the sense and nonsense of the association between name servers and the 
domains they belong to. But finally you chose to ignore my points completely. 
You designed it your way, with the result that it is still being discussed heavily.

Regarding ccTLDs like .de, one could of course use EPP as a protocol on their 
model, but effectively you would have to throw away half of it and reimplement 
it: The objects themselves are not extensible, you either have to live with them 
or you have to replace them. Error codes are not extensible, with the 
consequence that some existing registries put additional error codes in the free 
text elements (which are not thought to be parsed).
Well, the registry could transform itself to be EPP compliant (maybe with the 
need to change their whole business process). But this reminds me to a proverb: 
"If the prophet does not come to the mountain, the mountain has to come to the 
prophet").

On behalf of CORE, our company has implemented the client side for the Afilias, 
Neulevel, Neustar, GNR registries and is currently preparing the implementation 
for DotCoop, .CN via Neustar. We are thinking of whether and how to use EPP as 
an additional protocol for the two sponsored gTLDs CORE operates.

Having this as a background, my personal impression I got in the meantime is 
that EPP provides less benefits as one might expect. Each of the unsponsored 
registries has some specialities (despite the fact that they all use different 
versions of EPP drafts) that need special handling far, far away from the 
protocol level. Sponsored registries are even worse, as they need new requests 
in EPP and as they might introduce side effects not covered by the protocol.

As long as one has a library for the programming language one works with (which 
are supplied by most of the registries), the benefits EPP might have compared to 
other similar protocols vanish, esp. as EPP does not provide/support any new 
features like transaction management (similar to databases) or a more complex 
model of sponsorship (beyond the registry-registrar model).

Finally, I wouldn't interpret the silence of many list members as consent. 
People have different reasons to subscribe to this list and different reasons to 
participate actively or not.

regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      [email-masked]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:47:00 -0500

At 16:25 +0100 12/6/02, Klaus Malorny wrote:

>you do know that the world's largest ccTLD (.de) has a different model
>currently and that it works fine. But you chose to ignore it. We had long
>discussions about the sense and nonsense of the association between name
>servers and the domains they belong to. But finally you chose to 
>ignore my >points completely. You designed it your way, with the 
>result that it is still
>being discussed heavily.

Can we get a summary of just what the problem is?  Pointers to the 
archives are sufficient, or perhaps more words to this.  Over time 
the way in which hosts (name servers) are associated with domains 
have changed.  There is still some talk about *external* hosts.  (You 
mention 'discussed heavily?'  In what venue?)

>People have different reasons to subscribe to this list and different reasons
>to participate actively or not.

I know of a couple of efforts that are on going 'under the covers.' 
This isn't beneficial to anyone as the WG can't react to comments not 
made.  In the IETF world, silence is consent because no one is ever 
required to voice an opinion.  Since we don't have voting, 
membership, etc., we have to rely on vocal participation.

I hope that no one feels that they are at the mercy of EPP.  I've 
been trying to get anyone with any reservations about EPP's 
definition to speak up.  I tried unsuccessfully to get ccTLDs to 
participate at the Atlanta meeting, to bring up unresolved issues. 
If anyone is afraid to speak against EPP because of its origin, speak 
directly to either of the co-chairs - Jaap and myself.  Neither of us 
is in any way attached to origins of the protocol.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:59:11 -0500

On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 07:46 Canada/Eastern, Hollenbeck, Scott 
wrote:

> members of the WG would have shot it down long ago.

It is also important to remember that the domain and nameserver mapping 
documents are extensions to the base protocol, and not integral to it. 
There is nothing to stop a registry for whom the current documents are 
not a good match from writing their own mapping documents that better 
suit their purposes.

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:24:27 -0500

On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 10:25 Canada/Eastern, Klaus Malorny wrote:

> Error codes are not extensible, with the consequence that some 
> existing registries put additional error codes in the free text 
> elements (which are not thought to be parsed).

We have spent time scratching our heads trying to find error codes to 
describe particular conditions in our EPP server implementation, and 
the idea of an extensible structure for error codes corresponding to 
the currently-documented functionality seems like a useful one.

There is also the issue that a future object mapping might introduce 
services with error conditions that are just not accommodated by the 
currently-specified set of error codes. This might lead to subversion 
of free-text error fields (as Klaus described) into machine-readable 
subcodes, or to the reinvention of much of the base EPP functionality 
in other protocols rather than reusing the work that has already been 
done here.

Perhaps a structure where a generic, fixed and base set of error codes 
could be extended with sub-codes that are particular to a server 
implementation, or particular to an object mapping specification, might 
do the trick. Clients unfamiliar with particular server sub-codes could 
happily ignore them, whereas those clients which have a need to obtain 
more fine-grained information could parse them.

If this idea seems interesting, I would be happy to come up with some 
corresponding text.

Joe

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:20:49 +0100

> archives are sufficient, or perhaps more words to this.  Over time the 
> way in which hosts (name servers) are associated with domains have 
> changed.  There is still some talk about *external* hosts.  (You mention 
> 'discussed heavily?'  In what venue?)
> 

It took place in August 2001, the thread was named "host transfers".

regards,

Klaus

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:57:40 +0100

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:59:11AM -0500,
 Joe Abley <[email-masked]> wrote 

> not a good match from writing their own mapping documents that better 

Yes, but this could be a nightmare for the implementor of the EPP
server: if you distribute a shrink-wrapped server (wether free
software or closed), you need some sort of plug-in mechanism in the
server in order to support "alternative" mappings. It is not obvious
to realize. (/etc/epp.conf contains a relationship of
extension->module/class to load? And the registry develops the local
modules/classes?)

Let's try: how many EPP servers (whatever their legal status) have the
"standard" mappings hardwired in the code? I assume "all".

It is also a problem for the registrars: if you interact with several
registries and they use different EPP mappings, you lose a part of the
reason to have a standard protocol...

---

From: Hong Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:16:04 -0800 (PST)

Agree. I bet this is what the standard mappings are
for.

> reason to have a standard protocol...

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

---

From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:43:59 +0100

> reason to have a standard protocol...

Not necessarily, it depends how well the client is coded, and if it
knows the abstract the specificities of each Registry.
Not trivial, but doable IMNSHO.

Patrick Mevzek.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:57:40 +0100

---

From: Hong Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:02:28 -0800 (PST)

Ed, Scott,

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?

While the beauty of EPP is that it applies to many
different types of registries, it has to be a standard
set of extensions for a particular type of registries,
such as domain name registries. Or why bother spending
all the time producing the domain/contact/host mapping
documents to RFCs?

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.

Cheers,

--Hong