Re: [eppext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-reverse-00.txt

[Rik Ribbers <[e-mail]>]

> On 17 Nov 2015, at 20:37, Gould, James <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> My recommendation is to handle it in a similar fashion with
>>> draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay in using strictly an object extension, where
>>> reverse:create is used to submit the reversal request
>> 
>> <imho>Yuck!</imho>
>> 
> 
> I’m not sure why use of a create to submit a reversal request is not more natural then creating a protocol extension.  The advantage of the create is that you are creating a reversal request object that can be processed synchronously or asynchronously with all of the features of a object extension (transaction identifiers and command-response extensions).  The pending action poll message can asynchronously return the pending action result or you can provide support for an info command and response for retrieving the status of the reversal request on demand.  

From a personal perspective I agree with Gavin: Yuck!  However the question is what the goal of this draft is:

- Document the existing implementation for registration in EPP IANA registry? Then you can do whatever you like, get an expert review and leave the document as you wish

- Ask for WG-adoption and go for Standards Track; Ai, you might end up in the same situation as the keyrelay draft where there was a status quo on how to continue with the XML structure. In the end there were four people expressing their opinion on this matter and I decided to follow that advice, beside my own personal preference.

Can you tell us what your plans are for this draft? 

One other question: How does the server hello message look like with respect to this extension? 

Gr,
Rik