Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http-02.txt

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tobias,

thanks for your comments.

Please find mine below.

Il 22/06/2022 08:40, Tobias Sattler ha scritto:
> I agree that a redesign would only make sense if it can do more 
> afterward than before. Otherwise, it would only produce costs and 
> effort without delivering any real added value.
>
> I may not doubt whether the attractiveness can be an added value, but 
> I would at least question whether that is a sufficient added value.
>
> In my years as a registrar, missing or unequal test systems and 
> detailed documentation (e.g., error codes, behavior, poll messages, 
> limits, etc.) were a much bigger problem than how the transport 
> works—especially when transferring TLDs from one backend to another.
>
> I don't know how your experiences are/were in those cases, but if I 
> had a choice, I would instead work on simplification/documentation. If 
> I remember correctly, there was also once an approach to this from Jim 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-carney-regext-registry/
>
> Regarding Mario's draft, EPP over HTTP is already in use, and the 
> document, at least as I understand it, is only intended to standardize 
> the existing procedure, so there is no proliferation. I support that.

Yes, thst's the main purpose of the draft.

Anyway, the document includes what are in our opinion the points of 
strength of mapping EPP over HTTP.

Best,

Mario


> Tobias
>
>> On 21. Jun 2022, at 22:51, Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, at 15:09, Eduardo Duarte wrote:
>>> EPP is about 20 years old and I
>>> think it needs some reshaping to the actual Internet state.
>>
>> Is the EPP *transport* really where people struggle most? Ok, XML 
>> over TLS might not be the current trendy couple in Internet circles, 
>> but among all the problems I see in EPP (having worked both on 
>> registrar and registry side), I really do not have the transport in 
>> my top 10.
>> The plethora of extensions to do the same thing, and the various 
>> "quality" of extensions is more of a concern to me, as well as the 
>> non-existent discoverability of features (there is one extension 
>> solving part of the problem, not used by everyone). Or the lack of 
>> standardization in error codes/messages/details extended from core 
>> case. Or the now not good enough design of a contact. Or operations 
>> being mixed where they shouldn't (like restore in update).
>>
>> We barely arrived only a few months ago to have "fees" finally being 
>> a standard... and it
>> will take years before all registries switch to it. This is certainly 
>> where registrars struggle more than just having to use a TLS "socket" 
>> (I count around 28 versions of the fees document, for 18 different 
>> XML namespaces with more than a couple of them really used in the wild).
>>
>> Said differently, the transport part seems to me really the easy part 
>> of the problem of EPP viewed globally. Of course, if that blocks some 
>> actors, then the working group is certainly the relevant place to 
>> find out a standardized solution, but will really a lot of registries 
>> suddenly switch to it just for the sake of switching to it?
>>
>> Or: what EPP over TCP and/or a REST redesign really add as new 
>> features, solving current problems? Besides "it looks similar to the 
>> rest of the Internet, so it will attract more/better programmers" (a 
>> statement I would certainly have an hard time to believe) or "the 
>> crappy hosting I am using only allows HTTPS servers/clients and 
>> nothing else, so now I have to adapt my whole word just because I 
>> chose a bad system from the beginning".
>>
>> Just my personal views of course.
>>
>> -- 
>>  Patrick Mevzek
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: [phone]
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo