On Tue, Oct 27, 2020, at 10:55, Thomas Corte wrote: > If a registry really wants registrars to understand and process their > custom poll messages, it can still resort to simply reject the <login> > command if it doesn't contain the namespace in question.
That would certainly have my preference and it has one big bonus attached to it: no need of any change in the protocol, no need of any new extension/namespace, no need of any new specification. Sometimes the best solutions are not the technical ones. And it is not so much a stretch: many, but not all, registries mandate a "technical accreditation" at the beginning of the relationship with a given registrar. Adding a requirement there to support some namespaces is not a big change (a registrar is free of course to signal it during login and then just ignore those messages if he wants to ignore them, but then the responsibility clearly falls on his end and he is in control of his fate because he signaled the namespaces at login, without the registry forcing delivery to it of messages with "dubious" validity per RFC 5730). -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
