Thanks, that helps. For some reason the DataTracker returned no results when I searched for “restful EPP”.
Scott On Jul 23, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Maarten Wullink <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Scott, Sorry i forgot to include a reference to the draft, you can find it here. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wullink-restful-epp/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/16xqFKzukctZDxpzu89dLLHGVTj_3_M0sI5A-XZ89nexM3cHIB-7u73qVFJ0kaBngzudSqNz4OHMVtzTURuhKJHYCzobagpr8UahThiQJzXePkvRXc1XN79EMqcSJbbH_q-nOGKKb60bFDKB86-nq6ANOle0Ht_AC3GPNRmtvw51Co0DRCBx4zDpV3603ovMWQ1tr8LPoOVbG4BcBRguuLHRraRuO66kHlSLVhxo7cCzvvrPtDU-OlUM0eL1YHohaaAUKK-WHwyCvzGWknJVR1ORrN40M1fr_yxBP47qLypNGORKvmLDCdf3WfLz89wQb/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-wullink-restful-epp%2F> - Maarten Op 23 jul 2024, om 07:03 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> het volgende geschreven: -----Original Message----- From: Maarten Wullink <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:59 PM To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] RESTful EPP draft next session how to move forward Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 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://secure- web.cisco.com/1yR7AbWi_bLjoECIPto4bCW8jg5e4TpW2sOzLzzXVBZiEsJ- NZ8_czhrKU3ysMaudfEkrNP62UW_DmQQ5TCmaF3dNFkcI7JL6e6vnGY8Zjgs 3uXT3_R7nZJMCerzAR8KvZqoVH9K9PSDFsx8FElmyC41vl6hRiI4BwjCsBbxOI5 GSGNRm- 8JFVDPn82HPsKr25vRjdnzXeJlCDuIIyE5wtrJTfhqKiX711nhbtoa1fiS6mxB6TqZ 0bEkDI0GPSRSnNG9Vr2NJ0EuRtSJVQmzkQwvDBUTv- jJRupRMczoPPn4/http%3A%2F%2Fcentr.org%2F>) 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. [SAH] I can't find an IETF draft that describes the topic. I did find this one, though: https://sidn.github.io/ietf-epp-restful-transport/draft-epp-restful-transport.html I'd very much prefer to base our working group discussions on a published IETF draft. Please publish one, or more, as necessary. 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 [SAH] We really, really need to see a draft (or drafts) to have a meaningful discussion of this topic. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
