[regext] Re: RESTful EPP Charter side meeting Thursday 13:00

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I think thats wise. Well said Scott.

I shouldn't put words in people's mouths but back in the CRISP days
discussing whois replacement, I got a sense that the "whois problem"
excised the ICANN board and seniors quite a lot. Maybe it was down to
personalities, personal interests, but the idea of some consistency in
data management was big.

I am less sure modern ICANN thinks like that. I don't understand the
constituencies who make up "decision making" in this space. I would
hope the contracts don't say literally "whois on port 43" but a more
nuanced statement of public data which means RDAP can be grandfathered
in instead of some "no not like that" outcome.

And in like sense if it said ".. its EPP specified over <here>" then
we might find ourselves in a difficult place if we said "its not EPP"
but if we can say "EPP is now defined by ..." then we'd be on smoother
grounds.

Or not. It's ICANN.

I fully expect (based on what I think I've read) that some people here
say "its not EPP if it's not XML and SOAP" and maybe they're right.
But the intent is to have extensible provisioning. If the fit now is
for a HTTPS REST method, it's extensible, and it's for provisioning,
I'm more of a mind to call it EPP-ng than "not EPP"

-G