Pieter, It is interesting that when the drafts came out for resellers there was a lot of discussion on the list and at the working group meetings, but once there was agreement to create the more generic organization drafts, there was very little discussion. It was pointed out that the organization drafts would be more complex to address a broader set of use cases, but that was the direction received by the working group. The use case of providing registrar information via EPP was brought up as a reason to define the more generic organization drafts, which I view as the most straight forward and least controversial use case.
The question around the roles was raised on the list and discussed on the list, so I'm not sure whether there are any further questions or issues that need to be addressed. If there are I would like to know what the issues are. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 5/24/18, 6:38 AM, "regext on behalf of Pieter Vandepitte" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be> wrote: Hi Patrick, I respect your opinion and my gut feeling says it won't be used for anything else than resellers. But I might be wrong (and history tells me the odds are agains me :-)). I also respect the opinion of others and it's not up to me to assess in depth the needs of other registries, I can only challenge and trust other participants to act truthful. More important to me, the model seems correct and logical, with the others' point of view and needs in the back of my head. The only thing that bothers me in general (not only for this extension) is the low participation in discussion making it difficult to develop a specification that fits all needs. I do not agree with you regarding not moving forward. A lot of registries -including the one I work for- are reluctant to implement anything other than RFCs (how many extensions with status Informational in the EPP extensions registry are implemented by more than 1 registry?) Registrars are not happy with ad hoc extensions and I share their concerns. Moving forward is the necessary step to be able to converge to a single implementation for modelling resellers (and to enable interoperability) It is certainly not my intention to try to convince you to approve the draft. I will continue my write-up but I will write down your concerns and it's up to others to decide whether the Draft can become a Proposed Standard Kind regards Pieter > On 24 May 2018, at 07:44, Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 13:36, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: >> @Patrick, did you have time in mean time to catch up? How would you like >> the draft to be changed in order to support it? > > I unfortunately think that I am not convinced by the use case, and I believe that the document could be an I-D referenced on the IANA EPP Extensions registry without the need to become an RFC. Which other registry wish to use it on their systems? And if there is, then for other things than resellers? > > That does not change anything on the WG consensus on the documents, which should proceed on their own pace. > >> I guess it's the fact >> that roles are defined as properties of the organization and at the same >> time as properties of the link? > > Yes, that is one troublesome point I raised months ago. > > -- > Patrick Mevzek > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
