Subject: RE: lastVerified: optional vs. extension

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:14:51 -0500

Sorry, I missed a few points:

< The objects themselves are not extensible, you either 
< have to live with them or you have to replace them.

Not true.  Each of the domain, contact, and host objects can be extended.
For example, I have multiple individual submission Internet-Draft documents
published that extend the domain object.

It's true that you can't _remove_ required elements from the objects, but
definition of required elements if why we have a consensus-based process in
the first place.

> 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).

Again, not true.  Additional errors and error codes can be defined using the
extension mechanism.  If implementers are putting additional error codes in
inappropriate free text elements they're extending the protocol improperly.

-Scott-

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:12:39 -0500

On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 11:14 Canada/Eastern, Hollenbeck, Scott 

> inappropriate free text elements they're extending the protocol 

Do you have any examples of how this works?

Suppose I want to add an additional server system failure result code 
(say, 2309, "openreg-specific failure of some kind"). How could I add 
that in such a way that clients connecting to me could distinguish it 
from some future revision of the spec that defines 2309 differently, or 
some other registry which makes its own use of 2309?

Joe

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:36:57 +0100

> inappropriate free text elements they're extending the protocol improperly.

Hi Scott,

my understanding of "extensibility" is a bit different to to provide a 
single XML element which is a container for every possible extension. 
The problem is, like in any other project that aims to cover future 
developments, to have backdoors at the right places where they are later 
needed. You have some in EPP, of course, but on the other hand, in some 
other aspects EPP is so stringent, much more than it is required and 
more than a registry policy free protocol should have IMHO.

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