On 09 Mar 2014, at 09:28, Patrik Fältström <p...@frobbit.se> wrote:
> On 2014-03-08 09:00, Mark Andrews wrote: >> They have failed to invent / document a common standard way for >> machine updates to work. They could have quite easily got together >> anytime in the last decade and done a standardised update protocol. >> >> But they haven't. > > As long as the registries have _NOT_ unified their extensions of > whatever fluffy things they want, so that I as a registrar _really_ can > use the same EPP implementation to more than one (backend) registry, > then registrars have to spend energy and real $$ to implement those > incompatibilities. And do not have so much interest at all to do more > than many an API that is specific for them that faces the registrant. > > We have been through this hundreds of times before and I think the > blaming _registrars_ as the ones that have an incompatible portion of > the system must stop. But the fact is that EPP is several magnitudes better harmonized between TLDs compared to that registrars are offering their customers. There is no way around that today, and the registrars have no incentive at all to improve the situation. For all the registrars to offer the same API to their customers would really remove the lock-in effect that the proprietary interfaces that they have today. So how could we change this? I don’t see this happening from a standard organization at all. So yes - registrars is really a big reason for incompatibility. Registries could easily bypass the current rrr model by exposing API:s directly to registrants, but it wouldn’t be very popular with the registrars…
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
