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

[Rubens Kuhl <[e-mail]>]

I believe option 1 with the re-charter option is better. 
It’s not an extension. 

Compatibility with existing object mapping and extensions should be best-effort, and new extensions should specify whether it applies only to EPP, only to REPP or to both(supporting both is preferred but not mandatory). 


Rubens



> Em 22 de jul. de 2024, à(s) 22:59, Maarten Wullink <maarten.wullink=[e-mail]> escreveu:
> 
> 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://centr.org/>)
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Maarten
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]