Re: [eppext] rechartering

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Patrick,


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]> wrote:

> - EPP is now an "old" protocol, used by all gTLDs, and many ccTLDs
>   registries ; AFAIK it is not used outside of the domain name
> business, and seldom used outside of domain name registries; there is
> no clear indication of any work, outside of technical areas, to try
> improving EPP, for example by reducing the number of extensions,
> forcing registries to implement some of them, etc…
>

I believe that both LACNIC and NIC.br, which in addition to being a ccTLD
is also an NIR, use EPP.

The motivation for coordinating the extensions with EPP is the same for
RDAP. There are already a number registries designing extensions to RDAP,
and a good bit of it is overlap with EPP. One example
is draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping.


> So, having a place to discuss all internet registries protocol issues
> is good/mandatory, but this may as well be the regops or the gtld-tech
> or another mailing-list, not necessarily an IETF WG merging all
> extensions issues.
>

Both regops and gtld-tech are not IETF activities, and therefore cannot be
the home for IETF document work.

However, there is work that starts in the gTLD community that has a broader
interest and application. For example, draft-hollenbeck-weirds-rdap-openid
comes from the gTLD space, but some RIRs are interested in it.


> At the end of the day, I think what could be used as a criteria is:
> will this kind of merge in topics foster more work and feedback, and
> hence going forward faster, or will it make no change?
>

I agree, that's an important question to ask. If the additional topic is
too large for this working group, that would be a bad thing. But to date,
EPPEXT has not exactly been high volume. That being said, we also wouldn't
want to derail the backlog of EPP extension work with new RDAP work items.
Therefore the proposed charter text states that the initial focus will be
EPP work.

-andy