I agree that changing the EPP XML URIs or customizing the XML schema files,
where backward compatibility is not maintained, is not EPP. I had to modify
the EPP XML schemas a couple times (e.g., support I-D RGP "(pre/post)Whois"
elements and the RGP RFC "(pre/post)Data" elements during a transition period)
in my 20+ years of implementing EPP, but they were transitory in nature and
maintained backward compatibility. Note, the RGP change could have been
mitigated by using point versioning of the XML URIs that was used with later
EPP extensions like the Registry Fee Extension
("urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.XX" up to -09 and
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:fee-1.0" after WGLC and in the RFC). Changing of
the EPP XML URIs or making non-backward compatible changes to the XML schema
files should not be classified as EPP, since the same client software cannot be
used with the server independent of the server policy differences.
--
JG
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[email protected]
<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 8/22/24, 5:09 AM, "Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello,
On 22.08.24 08:37, Tobias Sattler wrote:
> I investigated which ccTLD might run EPP a while ago based on publicly
> available information.
>
> I don’t know if those ccTLDs are following this list, and I cannot guarantee
> its 100% correctness,
> but maybe it helps you.
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WpRMm1SCXp9y4vELKdzIcx_y5fza9EmONwtUyVCAg9IhD-z6AxDGtgCL7lQ25R5pZHUSOaKqHDptf_uxPsATYTuIFjNszNAddMEIPZwzi5EhQgA2VqsWCdvKFYK2nYUD3uBlghuYo0vQKutGNylKLBvgkOzKMdAFI4Kf0F28gNir0aM7YwloOk1fKj1DhmW8NEoq-2vXS6BLDqr9TBAgj7yYPPGmlKQverV5bkcWbQWesfw_ZlQQ1gFQwmYjJVDrmibVLklQYOW5dvghsdQg0GSMDb-Pbv6L3dgpoH4_ufE/https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1IMk5TBzeoJTOwDJfQ-I50Kztwr3bipdjcLKy1etG3cg%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing
>
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WpRMm1SCXp9y4vELKdzIcx_y5fza9EmONwtUyVCAg9IhD-z6AxDGtgCL7lQ25R5pZHUSOaKqHDptf_uxPsATYTuIFjNszNAddMEIPZwzi5EhQgA2VqsWCdvKFYK2nYUD3uBlghuYo0vQKutGNylKLBvgkOzKMdAFI4Kf0F28gNir0aM7YwloOk1fKj1DhmW8NEoq-2vXS6BLDqr9TBAgj7yYPPGmlKQverV5bkcWbQWesfw_ZlQQ1gFQwmYjJVDrmibVLklQYOW5dvghsdQg0GSMDb-Pbv6L3dgpoH4_ufE/https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1IMk5TBzeoJTOwDJfQ-I50Kztwr3bipdjcLKy1etG3cg%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing>
>
Given that e.g. .pl and .cz are on this list, it should be pointed out that the
list is based on a
very lax interpretation of "using EPP". Among other things, these two
registries (these are just
examples I'm aware of, I'm sure there are other offenders) are using heavily
modified versions of
the EPP XML schema files, with a custom target namespace, so that's not really
EPP at all;
registrars thinking they can just use their off-the-shelf EPP client to connect
to them are in for a
rude awakening.
So "using EPP" here really means something like "XML-based provisioning
protocol, roughly resembling
EPP".
Best regards,
Thomas
--
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Thomas Corte
Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Germany
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
