> -----Original Message----- > From: George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:51 PM > To: Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: RESTful EPP Charter side meeting Thursday > 13:00 > > 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. > > Yea, I think we probably agree but my comment was to new WG charter not > REGEXT re-charter. If we put EPP-on-REST to a new WG, the WG should do the > formalism of REST and JSON (!) for it, and then walk away. Future revisions to > functional elements? Good question. > > I presume if the REST model worked, ICANN would also incur some .. > belief it was moving contracted obligations to support it? We're not e.g. > doing > work to a dream are we? Is there a belief we can specify a protocol which > ICANN will at some level "commit" to adopting? > requiring? Mandating? Not things in our purview of course, but I want to > believe the prime body here is not going to say "cute: not interested"
[SAH] This is a real risk. Hundreds of existing operators have made significant investments in developing and operating ugly old EPP, with no reason to replace those implementations just because some new transport, or data encoding scheme, or other shiny object comes along. This is an important reason to ensure that, if we decide to do anything, we MUST produce something that allows potential new operators to do their thing without mandatory impact on legacy operators. If we ever document requirements, that should be requirement number 1. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
