[rpp] Re: Why the limit to RMM level 2?

[Pierre Thierry <[e-mail]>]

Le 24/02/2026 à 18:38, Pawel Kowalik a écrit :
>
> We didn't put level 3 as requirement or ambition basically because of 
> split opinions in the WG about usefulness of those mechanisms for a 
> provisioning protocol.
>
Sadly, REST is not the norm and it creates a chicken-and-egg problem to 
adopt it more, when its usefulness is not absolutely obvious.
>
> I am convinced however, that some of these mechanism would be useful. 
> On the other end a provisioning protocol does not necessarily have to 
> drive application
> state in a way unpredictable to the client and the clients rarely have 
> a need to follow breadcrumbs of path they don't know. Just the 
> opposite - the clients need
> to know business logic of the server (registry) to know what payloads 
> and parameters they have to provide in the requests.
>
My prior probability on these things is 10:1 odds that people didn't 
anticipate how the server could usefully drive the client with logic 
that can evolve just server-side.

But I guess the prior experience with EPP gives you a good expectation 
of what could evolve or not and the impact on the client-server contract 
for those.

Wouldn't REST still be useful when it comes to provide attenuated 
access? For example, redirecting users to a different server for 
read-only access or even on different servers depending on the 
sensitivity of objects or actions can make the job of security audits 
easier. Also, REST makes it possible to decide for a sharding strategy 
later in a server's life.

> Here the WG opted also for strict handling of data validation, so a 
> more coupled design between clients and servers is to be expected.
>
Is this aspect documented somewhere?
>
> If you are interested to participate in the review/discussion, here 
> the PR:
> https://github.com/SIDN/ietf-rpp-core/pull/36/changes
>
Thanks! I'll start reading the PR.

Curiously,
Pierre Thierry
-- 

[e-mail]
0xD9D50D8A