I think thats wise. Well said Scott. I shouldn't put words in people's mouths but back in the CRISP days discussing whois replacement, I got a sense that the "whois problem" excised the ICANN board and seniors quite a lot. Maybe it was down to personalities, personal interests, but the idea of some consistency in data management was big.
I am less sure modern ICANN thinks like that. I don't understand the constituencies who make up "decision making" in this space. I would hope the contracts don't say literally "whois on port 43" but a more nuanced statement of public data which means RDAP can be grandfathered in instead of some "no not like that" outcome. And in like sense if it said ".. its EPP specified over <here>" then we might find ourselves in a difficult place if we said "its not EPP" but if we can say "EPP is now defined by ..." then we'd be on smoother grounds. Or not. It's ICANN. I fully expect (based on what I think I've read) that some people here say "its not EPP if it's not XML and SOAP" and maybe they're right. But the intent is to have extensible provisioning. If the fit now is for a HTTPS REST method, it's extensible, and it's for provisioning, I'm more of a mind to call it EPP-ng than "not EPP" -G _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
