Sorry, I forgot to reply to all ;-)
-------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Oggetto: Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http-02.txt
Data: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:11:37 +0200
Mittente: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>
A: Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com>
Hi Patrick,
thanks for having shared yout thoughts.
Please find my comments below.
Il 21/06/2022 22:51, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, at 15:09, Eduardo Duarte wrote:
EPP is about 20 years old and I
think it needs some reshaping to the actual Internet state.
Is the EPP *transport* really where people struggle most? Ok, XML over
TLS might not be the current trendy couple in Internet circles, but
among all the problems I see in EPP (having worked both on registrar
and registry side), I really do not have the transport in my top 10.
The plethora of extensions to do the same thing, and the various
"quality" of extensions is more of a concern to me, as well as the
non-existent discoverability of features (there is one extension
solving part of the problem, not used by everyone). Or the lack of
standardization in error codes/messages/details extended from core
case. Or the now not good enough design of a contact. Or operations
being mixed where they shouldn't (like restore in update).
We barely arrived only a few months ago to have "fees" finally being a
standard... and it
will take years before all registries switch to it. This is certainly
where registrars struggle more than just having to use a TLS "socket"
(I count around 28 versions of the fees document, for 18 different XML
namespaces with more than a couple of them really used in the wild).
Said differently, the transport part seems to me really the easy part
of the problem of EPP viewed globally. Of course, if that blocks some
actors, then the working group is certainly the relevant place to find
out a standardized solution, but will really a lot of registries
suddenly switch to it just for the sake of switching to it?
Or: what EPP over TCP and/or a REST redesign really add as new
features, solving current problems? Besides "it looks similar to the
rest of the Internet, so it will attract more/better programmers" (a
statement I would certainly have an hard time to believe) or "the
crappy hosting I am using only allows HTTPS servers/clients and
nothing else, so now I have to adapt my whole word just because I
chose a bad system from the beginning".
Just my personal views of course.
I agree with you that there are EPP issues that probably need to be
fixed with higher priority. However, some registries using EPP over HTTP
exist and, since RFC 5730 admits other transport than TCP, it seems
logical to me to define the specification for another mapping currently
in use.
The proposal doesn't aim to be the panacea to all of the EPP problems
but just the attempt to regulate an existing practice.
Nevertheless, the authors believe that mapping EPP over HTTP could
result in some benefits (those described In the introductiuon and the
appendix) on both client and server side.
Best,
Mario
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
