Subject: [provreg] Has the EPP world really changed?

From: "Ucom.ch - Bernie Hoeneisen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:59:03 +0200 (CEST)

Hi!

Following the recent discussion on EPP extensions, some experience I made 
in the past crossed my mind; i.e.

since 2005 I have been trying to convince first Registries, later 
Registrars to harmonize similar use cases and standardize them as EPP 
extensions. However, so far most of the Registries and Registrars 
have seen little incentive to put effort into harmonization of EPP 
extensions.

Some typical answers were:

* Registries:

   "Why should we go through the effort of standardizing and
   implementing standard EPP Extensions, if we can just define
   our own stuff and our Registars have to implement it anyways?"

* (Big) Registrars:

   "Our system anyways talks to most of the Registries. So, why
   should we put effort in standardization, which only helps our
   competitors to build much simpler EPP Client systems?"

Has the world really changed or are we about to run into the same barriers 
that have prevented EPP Extensions from being standardized in the past 
decade?

All the best,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Technology

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:48:13 +0200

On 24 aug 2012, at 10:59, "Ucom.ch - Bernie Hoeneisen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Has the world really changed or are we about to run into the same barriers that have prevented EPP Extensions from being standardized in the past decade?

This is a generic IETF discussion. "Why should we create standards that lead to interoperable implementations?". Same answers. In some cases it works, in some it does not.

   Patrik

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:13:51 -0400

In 2009 and 2010 within CENTR Tech there was an informal look into 
this.  (Note the dates...)  The result of a cursory examination of 
whether EPP was sufficient as it was or was there a need for EPP 2.0 
was that EPP plus the extensions were acceptable for two reasons. 
One, there was software out there available that handled the 
extensions, the code written by Patrick Mevzek (I believe) was cited. 
Two, the cost of having to retool all the EPP servers out there for a 
new protocol would be a disruptive cost that was not (clearly) worth 
the benefit.

What also happened then, dating to a meeting at an IETF in spring of 
2010, was a lot of registry operators became introduced to this list 
and through it and meetings, to the originators of the protocol. 
Scott Hollenbeck was able to address the operator community and help 
revive the notion of correctly extending EPP.  At the time there were 
thoughts that EPP could not be extended to do certain things, after 
some consultation and publicity of the "forgotten" EPP RFC (3735), 
fears about extending EPP subsided.

(The list was set up for a WG that was in place from 2000 until 2003 
or 2004.  The domain name industry really bloomed after that time, 
when there was no "publicity" for the list.  So many operators were 
never aware of it.)

The debate rages on whether there are too many extensions or not. 
EPP was designed to be extended but there's the opinion that 
something so extended demonstrates that it was too weak to begin 
with.  Personally, I don't cling to the latter idea.  So long as the 
code for an extension is available or can be created, to me it 
doesn't matter if the code is for an extension or the base.

At 10:59 +0200 8/24/12, Ucom.ch - Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Following the recent discussion on EPP extensions, some experience I 
>made in the past crossed my mind; i.e.
>
>Registrars to harmonize similar use cases and standardize them as 
>EPP extensions. However, so far most of the Registries and 
>Registrars have seen little incentive to put effort into 
>harmonization of EPP extensions.
>
>Has the world really changed or are we about to run into the same 
>barriers that have prevented EPP Extensions from being standardized 
>in the past decade?
>
>
>All the best,
>  Bernie
>
>--
>
>http://ucom.ch/
>_______________________________________________
>provreg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:20:50 +0200

On 24 aug 2012, at 16:13, Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So long as the code for an extension is available or can be created, to me it doesn't matter if the code is for an extension or the base.

So, if registry A have extension f(A) and registry B later when implementing same or similar thing chooses to have extension f(B), the fact that registrars have to then implement both f(A) and f(B) instead of just f(A) does not concern you?

   Patrik

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:31:21 -0400

At 16:20 +0200 8/24/12, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>  So long as the code for an extension is 
>>available or can be created, to me it doesn't 
>>matter if the code is for an extension or the 
>>base.
>
>So, if registry A have extension f(A) and 
>registry B later when implementing same or 
>similar thing chooses to have extension f(B), 
>the fact that registrars have to then implement 
>both f(A) and f(B) instead of just f(A) does not 
>concern you?

No.  But I'm not registrar. ;)  (Drum roll please.)

In attempts to elicit responses from registrars 
(which was not entirely unsuccessful), there was 
never an overwhelming "yes" to that question. 
Lightly put, so long as there was a comprehensive 
piece of code they could download, it wasn't a 
problem.  In some cases, the registrars weren't 
implementing anything, so the number of 
extensions didn't matter.  They just got the code 
and put it in place.

Note - "not entirely unsuccessful" means a few 
talked to me but the sample set was biased and 
small.  But non-zero.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:50:07 +0200

> No.  But I'm not registrar. ;)  (Drum roll please.)

;-)

I am teasing you...sorry...

> In attempts to elicit responses from registrars (which was not entirely unsuccessful), there was never an overwhelming "yes" to that question. Lightly put, so long as there was a comprehensive piece of code they could download, it wasn't a problem.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we COULD in the IETF have accepted the same story for SIP, SMTP and XMPP. We did not. What would have happened if everyone running a mail server "posted" on some web page somewhere some code in some language that managed to communicate with the flavor of the protocol they use.

As a registrar, I see the current model works, but the balance between "who pays the cost" is not balanced between registries and registrars. But it works.

As a long term participant in the IETF community, I am VERY concerned!!!

> In some cases, the registrars weren't implementing anything, so the number of extensions didn't matter.  They just got the code and put it in place.

Of course, if you are lucky!

   Patrik

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:09:25 -0400

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> The problem with this kind of thinking is that we COULD in the IETF
> have accepted the same story for SIP, SMTP and XMPP. We did not. 

Those seem like pretty poor analogues of EPP to me.  In all those
cases, the basic idea is that the parties to the protocol need not
have a pre-existing relationship with each other.  They _can_ be used
to initiate contact.

The same is not true of EPP, which relies fundamentally on the idea
that there is some sort of contractual relationship outside the
protocol.  That relationship can be used to exchange information about
the relevant extensions in use.

I'm not willing to argue this too hard, but there is a practical
difference here.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:30:41 -0400

>As a long term participant in the IETF community, I am VERY concerned!!!

Why I am not so concerned is...the population 
that uses EPP is, compared to the general case, 
rather constrained.  As opposed to more general 
purpose applications like SMTP, SIP and XMPP 
(just to parrot the list you mentioned), EPP is a 
business-to-business protocol in a single 
industry.  All sorts of individuals (in terms of 
mission) send mail, call, and message.  But only 
domain name registries and registrars use EPP. 
(And not even all of "them" do.)

I too have seen instances were too many options 
is a deterrent to deployment.  In places were 
there are many operational choices dictating many 
configuration knobs, things get complicated.  I 
don't think we have that with EPP.  Even if we 
add 2000 TLDs, it's still just about domain names 
with basic contact information.  Policies for 
modes of operation will vary but they may 
converge on their own.  (The 2000 new TLDs will 
share more in common that the current 300 if just 
because they contracting agent is the same.)
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468