I believe option 1 with the re-charter option is better. It’s not an extension.
Compatibility with existing object mapping and extensions should be best-effort, and new extensions should specify whether it applies only to EPP, only to REPP or to both(supporting both is preferred but not mandatory). Rubens > Em 22 de jul. de 2024, à(s) 22:59, Maarten Wullink > <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> escreveu: > > Hi All, > > During the next REGEXT session on Wednesday we will be asking the WG where to > best continue to work on RESTful EPP (REPP). > > There was broad support for this work during previous sessions and on the > mailing list and by other communities such as CENTR (centr.org > <http://centr.org/>) > But, some have also expressed the opinion that REPP is not an extension nor > transport protocol, but instead something new. > > The current draft is not fully compliant with RFC5730 ( e.g. statleless vs > stateful) but does have a goal of full compatibility with the existing object > mapping and extensions. > > How to best fit formally fit this work into the IETF process? > We see 2 options: > > 1) WG to adopt this work? > - This is the preferred option > - Is it an extension (in a wider sense)? > - Work on WG re-charter in parallel (if required)? > > > 2) Create a new WG (NEXTGEN-EPP)? > - Focus on a next generation RESTful EPP? > - Cleaner and no distractions by work on EPP/RDAP extensions? > - But will be same people + more red tape > > > Best, > > Maarten > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
