Patrick, Thanks for your thoughts and questions, I do appreciate it. Response inline...
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com> wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 18:09, Anthony Eden wrote: > > I've thrown together a repo over at GitHub to work on an EPP over HTTP > > draft (https://github.com/aeden/epp-over-http). I'd love to know if > there > > are others from the community who are interested on collaborating. > > As I am sure you are aware, some registries currently uses HTTPS, like .IT > and .PL at least. > It may be a good idea, if not already, to try sharing discussions with > them and see if you can converge on something, if you are planning to do a > standard. > Thanks for the tip. We're just getting into direct integration with registries, even though we've had our ICANN credentials for quite some time, thus I was not aware that .IT and .PL were using HTTP already. I agree that having their input as they're already operating EPP over HTTP will be good for any successful standard. > > You may also be aware that when EPP itself was drafted they were then > multiple other proposals for transport, besides TLS. There was at least > SMTP if I recall correctly and BXXP (BEEP) which I think does not really > exist anymore but it looks like to me that many of its features are also > present nowadays in HTTP/2. > I do see mentions of SMTP and BEEP in RFC 5730 in the transport discussion, but none of them ever became standards, right? > > Maybe there are some ideas to grab from these past attempts, the documents > themselves or the discussions. > I'll see if I can dig up the drafts or the discussions around them. > > > As a > > registrar, we'd love to be able to work with registries using HTTP as the > > transport protocol in the future. > > I am curious, why particularly prefering HTTP over TCP (or more precisely > HTTPS over TLS)? > > Did you tak time already to document the differences with TCP, in the > realm of EPP, what are the benefits and the drawbacks? > I mention briefly in the introduction of the draft, however my goals with this draft would be to make it registry implementation easier for small registries who currently only provide a very small number of concurrent TCP connections. Stateless protocols should be easier for a small registry to work with as requests can be distributed across multiple servers without the need for session tracking. Additionally I think HTTP would be easier for new registrars to start with because of existing client-side tooling and libraries. As for the drawbacks, to take advantage of HTTP 1.1's stateless nature, the specific requirement of EPP being stateful will need to be relaxed. Also, there is additional data (headers) that must be transported with HTTP requests vs. EPP over TCP which increases the amount of bandwidth used per request. > Note that the current version of this draft deals solely with EPP over > HTTP > > 1.1, it does not consider HTTP 2 at this time. > > (I did not look at your code/document yet). > Why is it so? > Just a lack of time or some specific reason against HTTP/2? > I have nothing against an HTTP/2 implementation, I just don't see it as having the same benefits as HTTP/1.1 given that HTTP/2 uses a single TCP connection and multiplexing, effectively negating the stateless benefits of HTTP/1.1. > > If there anything that works with HTTP/1.1 but not /2 it should be > documented. > As nowadays, for new works, I think it is best to concentrate on the newer > versions of other standards when you do a layering (hence HTTP/2) instead > of forcing retro-compatibilies, except if good reasons for that of course, > this is what I am curious about. > > -- > Patrick Mevzek > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > -- DNSimple.com http://dnsimple.com/ Twitter: @dnsimple
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
