Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/p roposal
Patrick <pat+ietf@patoche.org> Wed, 03 December 2003 15:59 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20897 for <provreg-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:59:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZPp-0003Mz-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:59:49 -0500
Received: from nic.cafax.se ([192.71.228.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZPn-0003Mr-00 for provreg-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:59:48 -0500
Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB3Fn0dF017405 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:49:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB3FmxbN017404 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:48:59 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f
Received: from nohope.patoche.org ([62.160.23.78]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB3FmwdF017396 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:48:58 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nohope.patoche.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nohope.patoche.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id hB3FmqfI021979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:48:53 +0100
Received: (from patrick@localhost) by nohope.patoche.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id hB3Fmqlv021977; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:48:52 +0100
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:48:52 +0100
From: Patrick <pat+ietf@patoche.org>
To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt comments/p roposal
Message-ID: <20031203154852.GG18622@nohope.patoche.org>
References: <20031203122940.GC17279@nohope.patoche.org> <E1ARYz8-0002f2-00@mail.libertyrms.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1ARYz8-0002f2-00@mail.libertyrms.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-PGP-KeyID: A241FB6B
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9DA9 5054 7A5D 03FC A9AD 9AFF 1371 9F06 A241 FB6B
X-Request-PGP: http://www.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xA241FB6B
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:32:10AM -0500, Michael Young took time to write: > You don't specifiy that you actually have implemented RGP via the renew > command extension for any registries. Given that you state its been six > months since you implemented epp clients, it seems you couldn't have done so > for RGP(renew ext approach) which came in later than that. I do not see how this information can be useful to our work. In fact I do not see that this WG should put in stone what appears to be current implementations. It should develop a sane standard, and if things are not finally as they are today in the wild, it is not a problem of this WG. As someone doing implementations, I prefer James approach on this issue, and that is only what I am saying, since people asked. And when not coding, I can read drafts and see what I prefer, thanks for asking. > Also we have a silent majority of well over a hundred registrars that are > using RGP via the renew command extension today. And then what ? Because everyone is doing something, this WG is forbidden to specify things otherwise ? > I have yet to see any > registrars come into the list and specifically say they have a desire to > reimplement the current EPP approach to RGP. The gains in adopting a new > command for the community at large are not greater than the efforts to > redeploy an entirely new approach in EPP registries when an > adequate/workable approach exists. After all we are talking about EPP > concerns in this group, not RRP concerns. Sorry, but EPP not being right now a standard, and not even an RFC, what people are doing right now is *irrelevant* to what is done with the standard. As far am I aware, this thread talks about what is in draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-01.txt or what will be. So, if people already started to use a *draft* to implement EPP, and then add their own specifics like RGP, it is *their* problem. > I go back to a simple statement. > > "If it aint broke, don't fix it." Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the problem in hand. Since the ``it'' (an EPP _standard_ with extensions for RGP for example) does not exist _yet_. We can even say this it *is* broken, since I will be happy to learn how you will handle RGP on other objects than domain name, with a domain:renew extension. PS: please no CC to me, I'm subscribed, and please watch your quotes. -- Patrick. ``Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.''
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… janusz sienkiewicz
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… janusz sienkiewicz
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Gould, James
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Michael Young
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Gould, James
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Gould, James
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Ram Mohan
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Patrick
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Michael Young
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Patrick
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Michael Young
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Gould, James
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… janusz sienkiewicz
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Gould, James
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Michael Young
- RE: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-0… janusz sienkiewicz