It is interesting to see the discussion about EPP over HTTP. Right now I am working on a greenfield development project where we will need to connect to the majority of Registries. Being that this is a greenfield project we have been keen to architect the system that will interact between the Registries and the Registrar to run within the public cloud. Azure and or AWS. We had a discussion the other day about using Azure Functions but had to quickly rule it out because EPP requirement on TCP Sockets. Azure Functions only support http as a protocol .
Has there been any conversation about the Registries using REST? Cheers Ryan -----Original Message----- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 10:18 PM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft? On Tue, May 29, 2018, at 19:40, Justin Mack wrote: > Just about everyone else uses EPP 0.4 or EPP 1.0, with notable > exceptions of RRI (.DE) and TMCH for the Trademark Clearinghouse. If you want to list everything that looks like EPP but is not EPP, you could list .IE too. However I think this is unrelated: the protocol and the transport should be orthogonal. The protocol should specify some properties it needs (RFC 5730 for EPP, section 2.1 that should probably be the starting point of all endeavours to define new transports for EPP), and then it should work with any transport having those properties. Both "parts" should be able to evolve/be swapped independently as long as the contract (the common set of properties agreed upon) remains valid. As for EPP, each new transport should have a specification like it is done in RFC 5734 for TLS. -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
