IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] EPP Transport Service Discovery

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 20 March 2024 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFD8C15107C for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F9TQHM6lACDj for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F589C14F615 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-8280.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.130.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9F632420E4A; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:50:20 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FD8435C-9DEC-4007-807C-29EAE0B94A06@pch.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:50:17 +0000
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C805E6EE-7101-467F-9954-6B0AC0943512@rfc1035.com>
References: <5AEBB003-A5EC-4F7A-AF53-486EC6866EEB@rfc1035.com> <1FD8435C-9DEC-4007-807C-29EAE0B94A06@pch.net>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Gd0ib4LG754iCe9R3BshPBoWeS4>
Subject: Re: [regext] EPP Transport Service Discovery
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:50:29 -0000


> On 20 Mar 2024, at 07:04, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
> 
> Yes, because the registry can improve over time, and the registrars can update their software over time. If we don’t give updated client-side software a mechanism to discover that the server now supports improved transport, we get gridlock.

Bill, I somehow doubt a registry would introduce an updated/new transport and not tell anyone about that. Other than changing some not-yet-defined discovery RRtype. YMMV.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email