[rpp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01.txt
Pawel Kowalik <kowalik@denic.de> Fri, 27 February 2026 16:49 UTC
Return-Path: <kowalik@denic.de>
X-Original-To: rpp@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: rpp@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4460BFC35BA for <rpp@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:49:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=denic.de
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WHld_KCVFjit for <rpp@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:49:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout-b-201.mailbox.org (mout-b-201.mailbox.org [195.10.208.61]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CA8BFC35AE for <rpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:49:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-b-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4fMvSB4mZwzDryd; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 17:49:30 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denic.de; s=MBO0001; t=1772210970; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gmbpqrAWusX0MnXumH75Squ+JuGx2oOzA1lAQGY9xkA=; b=KOr5CpiSeKW5umQld3W8p/X3Fyp0BhximKGNonNdKEgn+zNft5lvWzpCnrvfbzhEZVGCCX B8cfPYyMVGTpWZMTA8NDSRt0HkXEIj0fFDyW8v2uUULOm00npp4cgvrV7824gns/g9sUNV +OubX570OurGGnilvxv2u+z/MvaBwIkY0v023JrhG85T8mQLmnGpSs3qmBWRR2jIjo5G+B j6fgduRgP5Aw00LWYZSSTL8Z1Y1f7Cgh1maTE6Upr8dyzWY/2t/KZA7+8AoWH2FZVutudW zGxLwEISnrjSqwtSL9XnI1LyulDkbKN1O+eXpZ57WhlZwmhe6Odr+wtBgABDHg==
Message-ID: <a1f43318-4ed8-4e2c-b372-5266c5cabf9d@denic.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 17:49:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Pawel Kowalik <kowalik@denic.de>
To: rpp@ietf.org
References: <177221028275.2889966.10822744860176581828@dt-datatracker-6ff7c68975-7k42g>
Content-Language: en-GB, de-DE
In-Reply-To: <177221028275.2889966.10822744860176581828@dt-datatracker-6ff7c68975-7k42g>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms020304010508040902010908"
X-MBO-RS-ID: 5008801436442b115ea
X-MBO-RS-META: zcahw6z8httwpa43n4ac76u73rqrcid6
Message-ID-Hash: OQPGESEB4WRLOL5K2CD5HEP6DASIYLZ5
X-Message-ID-Hash: OQPGESEB4WRLOL5K2CD5HEP6DASIYLZ5
X-MailFrom: kowalik@denic.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Maarten Wullink <maarten.wullink@sidn.nl>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [rpp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01.txt
List-Id: "This list discusses a provisioning protocol based on RESTful principles and corresponding data representations using JSON." <rpp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rpp/IWEfmOYQfHXZOhUd-0f2jXHUvb8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rpp>
List-Help: <mailto:rpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rpp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rpp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rpp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rpp-leave@ietf.org>
Hi, the new version of RPP architecture aligns the document with the current version of requirements draft-ietf-rpp-requirements-03. As a baseline for actual standard design documents, the editors consider this document as complete and ready for WG review. List of changes -00 to -01 * Extension Mechanisms - Refactoring of Extension mechanisms Section and addition of extensibility with transient request parameters and responses (Issues #94 and #95) - Added HTTP Headers to the "extension-mechanisms" section (Issue #93). - Added Extension Security and Extension Review Sections to Section 5.4 (Issue #91). * Service Discovery & Profiles - Added data privacy to Service discovery mechanisms and new "Data privacy" section. Refactored the whole section Section 5.1.22 (Issue #100). - Added Advertising of maintenance notices to "Service Discovery" section. (Issue #88) - Added text about compatibility profiles to "Profiles" section. (Issue #29) * Collections, Bulk Operations & Filtering - Added Section Collection Representation for API-level collection retrieval and expanded container element description in Data Elements Section. (Issue #85) - Extended Collection Representation to clarify that bulk operations, listing, and filtering are optional and must not be mandated where they negatively impact scalability or performance (Issue #41). * Security & Authentication - Added "additional measures to verify the client" to Section 5.1.3.4 (Issue #76). - Added TLS mandatory to Section 5.1.1 (Issue #78). - Create "Credential management" section for updating credentials using an extension. - Added Section Section 5.1.3.5 for credential and token revocation/replacement mechanisms (Issue #79). - Added text about signing messages in the "Message verification" section. (Issue #33) - Added reference to RFC9154 in the "Object level authorisation" section. (Issue #89) * HTTP Layer - Added "Canonical Addressing" section (Issue #81) - Added "Optionality" section to explicitly allow empty HTTP message body in a response (Issue #97). - Fixed inconsistent usage of HTTP status codes (Issue #108). * Resource Definition & Data Model - Added a "Relationships" section to describe resource type relationships. (Issue #83) - Added Section Required and Optional Data Elements to Data Elements to explicitly address protocol-level vs. server- policy-level data element requirements (Requirement R4.3). - Added Server-Managed Resources Section to HTTP Transport Layer Details and Server-Managed Resource Types Section to Resource Definition Layer to define read-only server-managed resources (Issue #84). - Explicitly state that all parties involved in a process are allowed to retrieve the process status. (Issue #98) - Added Section Section 5.1.15 to describe poll message equivalent (Issue #87). * Protocol Behaviour - Changed default validation from lenient to strict. (Issue #82) - Added "Scalability" section. (Issue #92) * Editorial & Terminology - Added IDN to "Terminology" and "Service discovery mechanisms" sections - Added boilerplate IANA Considerations section - Editorial: updated document references Kind Regards, Pawel On 27.02.26 17:38, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01.txt is now available. It is a > work item of the RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP) WG of the IETF. > > Title: RPP Architecture > Authors: P Kowalik > M Wullink > Name: draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01.txt > Pages: 42 > Dates: 2026-02-27 > > Abstract: > > Advancements in development, integration, deployment environments and > operational paradigms have led to a desire for an alternative for the > Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP). This document defines the > architecture for the RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP) - an HTTP > based provisioning protocol leveraging the REST architectural style > and JSON data-interchange format, aiming to standardise a RESTful > protocol for provisioning database objects. The architecture > includes support for extensibility, allowing for multiple possible > use cases. RPP is intended to co-exist with EPP, offering an > alternative protocol including data model compatibility with EPP core > objects and the benefits associated with the REST architectural style > and widely adopted HTTP-based technologies. > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rpp-architecture/ > > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01.html > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01 > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > rpp mailing list -- rpp@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rpp-leave@ietf.org
- [rpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01.… internet-drafts
- [rpp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rpp-architecture… Pawel Kowalik