[gtld-tech] URS Technical Requirements - version 3

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Mon Oct 7 15:16:01 UTC 2013

> If the volume warrants the use of EPP, I would be interested in
> participating in the development of a standard EPP extension.

I don't think it's a matter of volume. Reliability and security of the process are paramount even if registries process only 1 URS a year; the current URS requirements add a whole new level of complexity and failure options. One of the good things about EPP is not the protocol itself, is requiring the process to be well thought in order to be reliable. If we try to do the same thing with e-mail but think of it as strictly as we would think an EPP interface, we might succeed in making it work. 

One example: the current URS requirements say registries should save state of the domain name servers so if/when the lock is rolled-back, it needs to be changed. But if we would build this process as idempotent as we expect EPP to be, we would probably define it as URS provider saving the former state of domain name servers, and when the domain is unlocked, URS provider informs the name servers the domain needs to be changed to. 

If we think e-mail and later try to do EPP, it probably won't work. If we think EPP, implement it by e-mail now and down the road consider whether we implement it in EPP or no, that has a better chance. 


More information about the gtld-tech mailing list