Le samedi 08 mars 2014 à 20:00 +1100, Mark Andrews a écrit : > > > I know Registrars don't like to be told what to do > > > > +1 > > But they get told to do EPP to talk to the registries. > > They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for > machine updates to work. They could have quite easily got together > anytime in the last decade and done a standardised update protocol.
But they have no incentive to do it! No financial incentive anyway. Registries have incentives to use EPP because it makes registrars' life easier hence more registrars hence more channels for each registry hence more domain names sold. Same setup for registrars: more registries using EPP means less additional work each time they have to integrate one new registry. On the contrary, it is rare to have customers using more than one registrars for all of their domain name assets. Hence, registrants build specific tools to discuss with their registrars and life is good… of course until they need to switch to another provider. Registries have the same problem on a border case problem (which may be addressed with the eppext working group): they have no incentive to standardize their own EPP extensions, and the parts that are needed in the same way among multiple registries. So, in short, I suspect we should not criticize nor wait for registrars to build such standardized protocol because for them currently this would be only additional work with no benefit what so ever (those needing it already have some kind of local API). Put it differently, it will work if some incentives are found, be it contractual or otherwise. I'm speaking as a former registrar dev having to handle multiple registries at the RRP time with EPP not already dry when registries tried to use it, and as a developer of an abstract API over registrars API which gets no traction, for the obvious reason outlined above. -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
