Hello As an implementer of that draft and having it in productive use with poll messages for quite a while now I was able to run some analysis concerning its potential risks to break clients on a real world example.
We are sending out poll messages including the ChangePoll Element (rfc-8590) and render the poll message according to draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces if the client did not include the ChangePoll extension in its login services. Out of 78 registars 21 were receiving such messages rendered according to draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces since they did not include ChangePoll extensions in the login services. (the others did include ChangePoll) Out of these 21 registrars in questions we had zero feedback that any client broke. To be fair, we also did not get any positive feedback but I can say that at least from our experience it is totally save to implement the draft and breaking client where not an issue at all. Therefore here my up vote +1. Thanks Martin https://www.nic.ch/export/shared/.content/files/EPP-Manual_en.pdf On 26.10.20 13:42, Gould, James wrote: > Patrick, > > We'll agree to disagree with the value and risk of > draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces, since I can't think of a theoretical > or real risk to existing clients with at least two independent > implementations. Your objection can be included in the document shepherd > writeup, but as noted before there is no consensus to make a change. > -- SWITCH Martin Casanova, Domain Applications Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25 martin.casan...@switch.ch, www.switch.ch
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
