Hello Pieter, On Thu, Jan 4, 2018, at 19:22, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: > Maybe a bit late as I only very recently started following the list,
Welcome to the list then, fresh eyes and minds are always welcome. > Maybe not related to the review of the draft (but related to the draft > itself): What is the purpose of this draft? It seems that it aims to > build a model for all organisations involved in the domain name > registration business, which I doubt there is a need for... But correct > me if I'm wrong :-) Here is some history about these drafts, as a personal opinion and viewpoint, before you go in the archives: - the drafts were introduced to store reseller organization data in the registry, as provisioned there by registrars - there were then extensive discussion and quite a lot of pushback around the question of why reseller data should be stored at the registry; I myself voiced out the philosophical question to see why resellers were suddenly more important than registrars, since the drafts would create new reseller objects in the registry... which still does not have registrars object! - it was then collectively agreed for the drafts to be rephrased in order to sustain coding for any kind of organisation, and not just only resellers; this is where we stand right now - there was a very recent question by James to see if they could be a little extended to add some attributes needed specifically for registrars in order to make transfers in gTLDs simpler/more secure. I am still not convinced that there is a huge support from registrars to store all of this data in the registry, and I have yet to see practical use cases, hence my opinion not being very in favor of them, until at least they make sense to me technically, hence my review. After which standard IETF rules will prevail, so it is for sure good that more registries and registrars voice their opinion, in whatever direction. > So why not stick to that purpose and simply extend the contactAttrType > for contact role with values like "reseller", "proxy", ... and link a > domain to a contact using these new values? If you mean changing the current core EPP schemas, that would mean changing the version, going from epp-1.0 to epp-1.1 or epp-2.0 and that would mean a lot of changes in all registries and registrars. And if you start going that road there are many other issues, small by themselves but not negligible, that could be changed and enhanced in EPP. So, in short, while technically the simplest/fastest case, this is unlikely to happen. -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
