On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 07:51, Martin Casanova wrote:
> One more question: We would only be using a snippet of the fee extension
> and its namespace in this poll message but not fully implement it.
>
> Therefore should we include it in the greeting services of the server or
> not?
Yes IMNSHO.
If the server does not mention in `<greeting>` ALL of its extensions,
then the client needs empirical methods or static configuration, both being
bad and full of edge cases. Again, a server/registry could think this is
"fine",
but this is not remembering that an EPP client is often or even almost always an
EPP client to multiple EPP servers and has to tackle all the complexity arising
from this. Even the smallest "edge" case in one server that may look fine from
server view, can become a huge burden on client side when other servers have to
be handled at the same time.
Also, more philosophically, what aim will have the `greeting` and its
`svcExtension`
part if it has to be considered not exhaustive of what the server can use?
> In any case we need to include the XSD of rfc-8748 in our code
> since we are validating our own responses.
> We are thinking of an out of band opt in feature for clients to receive
> such poll messages so if they opt in they should be ready to digest it...
This goes back to the old discussion of managing unsupported namespaces, but
that is when the client DOES NOT mention in its `login` a namespace that
the server needs to use when constructing some reply.
--
Patrick Mevzek
p...@dotandco.com
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
