Re: [eppext] rechartering

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rik,

Scott has an interesting RDAP extension proposal
in draft-hollenbeck-weirds-rdap-openid.

Additionally we need an Informational RFC on guidelines for extending RDAP,
similar to the one for EPP. And there are several extensions being talked
about.

-andy

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Rik Ribbers <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hello Andrew and others,
>
>
>
> I am not completely convinced it is a good idea, but I do not have any
> objection to combine the work as the interested people are mostly the same.
>
>
>
> The overlap between EPP an RDAP is mainly the data that is send using a
> different protocol (and a different purpose). Another thing is that I am
> not aware of any work that is being done for RDAP other than the EPP status
> mapping draft from James Gould.
>
>
>
> But I can imagine there will we work on extensions for RDAP in the future
> as more parties are going to implement it.
>
>
>
> Gr,
>
> Rik
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Newton
> *Sent:* maandag 27 juli 2015 20:21
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [eppext] rechartering
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I'd like to offer another idea for the rechartering of this working group.
> Instead of focusing exclusively on EPP extensions, would it be better if we
> rechartered to focus on protocol issues of Internet registries... more
> specifically EPP and RDAP.
>
>
>
> Given that the constituencies for both have considerable overlap, and
> there is already at least one draft covering the mapping between EPP and
> RDAP and that there will likely be future drafts where the inputs of EPP
> and the outputs of RDAP are correlated, this seems like an easier way
> forward.
>
>
>
> I spoke privately with Scott, Barry, and Pete (the AD behind the
> chartering of both EPPEXT and WEIRDS) just to see if I wasn't barking madd,
> and they each thought it makes sense.
>
>
>
> What are your thoughts and comments about such an approach?
>
>
>
> -andy
>