[regext] Re: RESTful EPP draft next session how to move forward

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Wullink <maarten.wullink=[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:59 PM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] RESTful EPP draft next session how to move
> forward
> 
> 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.
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> During the next REGEXT session on Wednesday we will be asking the WG
> where to best continue to work on RESTful EPP (REPP).
> 
> There was broad support for this work during previous sessions and on the
> mailing list and by other communities such as CENTR (centr.org
> <http://secure-
> web.cisco.com/1yR7AbWi_bLjoECIPto4bCW8jg5e4TpW2sOzLzzXVBZiEsJ-
> NZ8_czhrKU3ysMaudfEkrNP62UW_DmQQ5TCmaF3dNFkcI7JL6e6vnGY8Zjgs
> 3uXT3_R7nZJMCerzAR8KvZqoVH9K9PSDFsx8FElmyC41vl6hRiI4BwjCsBbxOI5
> GSGNRm-
> 8JFVDPn82HPsKr25vRjdnzXeJlCDuIIyE5wtrJTfhqKiX711nhbtoa1fiS6mxB6TqZ
> 0bEkDI0GPSRSnNG9Vr2NJ0EuRtSJVQmzkQwvDBUTv-
> jJRupRMczoPPn4/http%3A%2F%2Fcentr.org%2F>)
> But, some have also expressed the opinion that REPP is not an extension nor
> transport protocol, but instead something new.
> 
> The current draft is not fully compliant with RFC5730 ( e.g. statleless vs
> stateful) but does have a goal of full compatibility with the existing object
> mapping and extensions.

[SAH] I can't find an IETF draft that describes the topic. I did find this one, though:

https://sidn.github.io/ietf-epp-restful-transport/draft-epp-restful-transport.html

I'd very much prefer to base our working group discussions on a published IETF draft. Please publish one, or more, as necessary.

> How to best fit formally fit this work into the IETF process?
> We see 2 options:
> 
> 1) WG to adopt this work?
> - This is the preferred option
>  - Is it an extension (in a wider sense)?
>   - Work on WG re-charter in parallel (if required)?
> 
> 
> 2) Create a new WG (NEXTGEN-EPP)?
> - Focus on a next generation RESTful EPP?
> - Cleaner and no distractions by work on EPP/RDAP extensions?
> - But will be same people + more red tape

[SAH] We really, really need to see a draft (or drafts) to have a meaningful discussion of this topic.

Scott