For some time now, I’ve been wondering whether it’s a good idea to choose the EPP service as a channel to provide information about maintenance windows of an unspecified set of services. After reading last weeks discussion here on the mailing list, it seems rather unrealistic to me, that this proposed EPP extension will ever help a registrar to significantly simplify its job of juggling with the services of hundreds of registries. In my view, the semantics of several fields are not defined precise enough to be of much help. And during the last week it got even worse (by declaring <system:host> as optional).
A “system” (what I usually call a service) is specified by two free form strings (<system:id>, <system:name>) and an (meanwhile) optional <system:host>. The value of <system:name> can be updated by the registry at discretion. How can an EPP client make sense out of these strings? In my opinion, the proposed extension can only be used to communicate the beginning and end of some maintenance windows in machine readable form. Information about the affected services can be provided only as free form text (or as a URI whose content can be changed at any time). Or is it indended, that the missing semantics will be specified outside IETF? Will some other group need to specify an “EPP maintenance profile”? Regards, Marcel. On 12.04.21, 15:49, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of i...@antoin.nl<mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> wrote: Hi all, This is a reminder that this 2nd WGLC will end tonight! We still don’t seem to have enough consensus, so please state your support. Also if you have responded to the first WGLC. Regards, Jim and Antoin Op 29 mrt. 2021, om 14:49 heeft Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl<mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> het volgende geschreven: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/ EXTRA ATTENTION: This is the second WGLC for this document. During the first WGLC, there were still some substantial comments to be addressed, and there was not enough positive feedback to declare consensus on this document. Let’s do better this time and please take the time to review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by replying to this message on the list. Since we have 3 authors, we need more reviewers to state support! This WG last call will end at close of business, Monday, 12 April 2021. The document shepherd for this document is James Galvin. Regards, Antoin and Jim _______________________________________________ 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
