The longer this discussion goes on, the more I become convinced that there's a simple concept here that's being complicated for reasons that I still don't understand. To whit:
Both EPP and RDAP extensions use identifiers that are ultimately associated with a specific specification document. IETF documents can be either Internet-Drafts or RFCs, and both types of documents have unique identifiers. Drafts are identified by a string and a number, e.g., draft-ietf-foo-00. When the draft changes, the number changes. RFCs are identified by a number. If the RFC changes, a new number is assigned. It's that simple. This is why I don't understand how extension identifiers for EPP and RDAP can't follow a similar, simple convention. We could agree that, for example, a draft RDAP extension should be identified by a string of the form "draft_<unique name>_<draft number>. Using the sample example from above for an initial version, draft_foo_0. Every time the draft/specification changes, the identifier is incremented just as the draft number is incremented. Draft implementation can happen, and servers can announce support for specified draft versions using these unique identifiers. Clients can choose the draft versions they wish to implement using the same identifiers. There's no need to worry about breaking changes because every version of a specification is associated with a unique identifier. Clients and servers use those identifiers when sending and receiving information, and mismatches in implementation are ignored or flagged appropriately. When a draft becomes an RFC, a final identifier (foo_0) is defined by removing "draft" and resetting the version number. We need to get past this. Keep it simple, people. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
