[rpp] Re: RPP -05 feedback

[Pawel Kowalik <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 18.03.26 15:03, Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 04:01:20AM +0000, Jasdip Singh wrote:
>
>> Bootstrapping:
>>
>> Wonder if it’d be better to use modern SVCB/HTTPS RRs, instead of SRV RRs, for an HTTP-based protocol like RPP?
> Speaking of this, I suggested instead to drop bootstrapping
> completely. RPP is quite different from RDAP in that respect: there
> are few clients and the registry know them all, it has a business
> relationship with them, it can easily send them the URL of the RPP
> server when onboarding registrars.

[PK] I think we should differentiate 2 use cases.

1) Bootstrapping = finding where is the server for .xx TLD. I agree this 
is likely of limited value today.

2) Locating the service = I know my starting point and my client can 
discover how to connect. Here, with diversity and agility of ways to 
connect, HTTPS RR on an entry domain name (from documentation or 
bootstrap) to know where to connect to the service or to steer clients 
to a new end-point can be of operational value imho.

A fix entry point like https://rrp.tld.xxx/v1/ can be a bit short sighted.

>> Re: the word “types”. Beyond “application/rpp+json” what other media
>> types do we envision for RPP? “application/rpp+cbor”, etc.?
> Or XML :-) Nothin has been done yet but I suggest that the probability
> that RPP use someday something else than JSON is low and remote so we
> should not go further than "future media types may be used in the
> future".

[PK] Exactly. We wanted to avoid saying RPP is JSON and never nothing 
else - the issue EPP landed with, but we won't spend time on specifying 
anything else than JSON.

Kind Regards,
Pawel