Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter

I am against any logic that creates different gating factors for the
different, competing solutions. Any contortion of the concept of an
EPP "extension" that results in the favor of one set of drafts over
the other is obviously unfair.

-andy

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:33 AM Mario Loffredo
<mario.loffredo=40iit.cnr.it@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jasdip,
>
>
> IMO, REPP is not an "EPP extension" as defined by RFC5730. It provides neither just a switch of transport (like EoH and EoQ) nor an extension to EPP comands and responses.
>
> Instead, it presents a full revision of EPP that maps some EPP features onto HTTP features.
>
> Moreover, the current proposal is incompatible with some existing or future documents including extensions to EPP query commands (see Jody's question at last meeting about REPP compatibility with the Fee Extension).
>
> On the contrary, in the spirit of achieving a full compliance with RFC5730, .it is going to update its EPP implementation that has been working since 2009.
>
>
> With regard to a possible RegExt rechartering, I also don't think we need it.
>
> RFC5730 already allows for implementing EPP over multiple transports. But it does even more, it makes some examples of possible alternatives to TCP.
>
> Therefore, leaving aside for the moment the debate about considering a new transport as an extension or not, it would be paradoxical if the protocol itself admitted other transports than TCP but it wouldn't be allowed to standardize them just like it has been done for TCP :-(
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
>
> Il 22/03/2024 01:12, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
>
> Hi.
>
>
>
> Curious if the newly proposed “RESTful EPP” is considered a new protocol that is different from EPP, or is it an “extension” of EPP? (AFAICT, the former seems outside the current regext charter.)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasdip
>
>
>
> From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 9:56 AM
> To: jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, maarten.wullink=40sidn.nl@dmarc.ietf.org <maarten.wullink=40sidn.nl@dmarc.ietf.org>, regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
>
> From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gould, James
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 PM
> To: maarten.wullink=40sidn.nl@dmarc.ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Maarten,
>
>
>
> The charter refers to EPP extensions, which transports is a form of an EPP extension.  RFC 5730 defines the extension points for EPP and includes support for extending the transports based on Section 2.1 “Transport Mapping Considerations”.  I don’t believe that there is a need to revise the REGEXT charter to support the additional of new EPP transports.
>
> [SAH] Agreed. New transport mappings are just another type of extension as long as they preserve the data model described in RFC 5730.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
> --
> Dott. Mario Loffredo
> Senior Technologist
> Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
> Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
> National Research Council (CNR)
> via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
> Phone: +39.0503153497
> Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext