Hi Jim,Please refer to the slides Maarten presented yesterday. There is no assumption that REPP is EPP, at least not in a sense if EPP is defined as literally RFC 5730.
The Hybrid Approach as you call it is actually THE approach in my mind. And yes the Design Considerations require further work to be more specific and reflect what was discussed yesterday and what will be for sure further discussed in regext or in to-be-WG.
Kind Regards, Pawel On 25.07.24 08:26, Gould, James wrote:
Pawel,It relates since there is a question of the problem that is being addressed. If there is the assumption that REPP is EPP and not defining a new provisioning protocol, then I don’t believe there is alignment in defining the appropriate path forward. Are you proposing a third possible approach that could be called the Hybrid Approach, which would define a new provisioning protocol that reuses some of the important elements of EPP? In the draft-wullink-restful-epp Design Considerations, it includes “Compatibility with existing EPP semantics defined in the EPP RFCs”, that is associated with EPP compliance / reuse with no specifics. It would help to get more specifics related to what EPP semantics are desired to be retained, since there are many that are not retained.-- JG cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40 *James Gould *Fellow Engineerjgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> *From: *"kowa...@denic.de" <kowa...@denic.de> *Date: *Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 11:10 AM*To: *James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: RESTful EPP Charter side meeting Thursday 13:00Yes Jim, I am only not sure how this relates to what I've written. Kind Regards, Pawel On 25.07.24 07:37, Gould, James wrote: Pawel, REPP is clearly not EPP and not an EPP extension (not a transport compliant with RFC 5730 section 2.1, not any of the EPP extension types defined in RFC 3735) . Below is an example list of compliance issues with REPP and EPP: 1. Being stateless 2. Changing the command framework by not using the command XML for many of the EPP commands. 3. Changing the response framework by not using the response XML for some of the EPP responses 4. Changing the base XML schema and the XML URI, which will require all of the EPP extensions to be updated 5. No clear mechanism to support extensions in many of the commands and responses that don't use XML. For example, how does the Registry Fee extension work, which extends the check command and check response? If an EPP extension requires a change to work with REPP, then REPP is not EPP. We need to first come to agreement of what REPP is to produce a list of reasonable requirements for the work. Thanks,--JG *James Gould *Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://secure-web.cisco.com/15ai9blPnsP69O30-agO9CGyD_a-wJxRFBC_VlguhRU99HCky28DfX7CdoDZ3xIq3ll-EIxkJ0t6sZfVtPYaqk4NynzqmexkAnVO0D11EphTBnlTLM27FoM97fVSvSnh1SGnvHH8JeoKhpUw1s9rcjkXKSysaNSCt-MzayghgcnhvQS4oq9Qee87hnhBlrEEM0KpWGhG_zpdxDkK-682qaYFKcTICx57D7MLZxAYPe_5aof-z85_IlIOmY47ldScKZAwFGatGtxPhXCU-05bY5jlraf3PAjkkP16LQ_XaRJY/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> *From: *"kowa...@denic.de" <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> *Date: *Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 10:26 AM *To: *"regext@ietf.org" <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: RESTful EPP Charter side meeting Thursday 13:00 Hi, I would not see it that black and white. Scott expressed perfectly yesterday, what I think should be a firm design goal for a RESTful approach, that data representations and protocol interactions should allow for easy and stateless translation layer from/to RFC5730 EPP. I would add that this should include also the extension framework supporting all current and potentially future extension without double standardisation effort needed for EPP and REPP. This is not greenfield approach, where such boundaries would not apply. This is also a bit broader than the definition of incremental approach. And it's an achievable goal. I know of at least 2 registries that actually have done it. EPP is not going anywhere so this is a reasonable approach to assume the implementers would take. Actually it is even expressed in Design Considerations section of draft-wullink-restful-epp already, just maybe not that straightforward and got lost in the discussion. Kind Regards, Pawel On 25.07.24 04:57, Gould, James wrote: I view two options for meeting the goals of REPP, which I believe is to have a more Cloud-friendly provisioning protocol: 1. Incremental Approach 1. Implement incremental changes to EPP that make it more Cloud-friendly, which does need to be fully compliant with the EPP RFCs. This includes adding support for the HTTP transport that is handled by EoH, support for client-side state that can be handled via an EPP command response extension (e.g., leverage something like JWT, extend the login command and login response to create the token, and have the extension pass the token with each EPP command to propagate the state) that can be used with any EPP transport (EoT, EoH, and EoQ), and create an EPP URL routing layer that optimizes the routing decisions to the EPP services. This is certainly not REST but it would be fully compliant with the EPP RFCs and would not require a rebuild of the existing EPP services, since the extensions are optional. This work could be done by REGEXT, where the only question mark is the definition of the EPP URL routing layer in the existing charter. Other aspects of REPP could be considered for the Incremental Approach, where this list is what I’ve thought of thus far. 2. Greenfield Approach 1. Define a new provisioning protocol that does not attempt to extend EPP, but instead takes the lessons learned from RDAP for REST and the lessons learned from EPP for the data model and extensibility to define a new RESTful provisioning protocol. EPP is more than RFC 5730 but includes all the extensions that have been created over the past 20 years, so creating a new provisioning protocol that can support a similar set of features will be a very large undertaking. This large task is best suited for a new working group with a defined set of requirements. Attempting to do this work in REGEXT would need to de-prioritize the extension work, since it will consume most if not all the focus. All the EPP services and extensions would need to be re-implemented and transitioned from EPP. I personally worked on the development of EPP and the transition from RRP, and the effort and impact should not be underestimated. What is currently defined in REPP is more Greenfield but is attempting to maintain some compatibility with EPP. I would go with the fully compatible Incremental Approach or a pure Greenfield Approach.--JG cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40 *James Gould *Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1S_6_mpoxAvgsWRR9qOU0lOtmJ-ZyI5FEmXyK2611IDuZJ5iXI7Ihjsyb1ti0d_buMVv0VFP5Cc-VFM9tY2MxAFo7QK7dn7iS_JlJe4kZrW05YdwSdx3xLq-e806_Gn3EoN_iM2hhdmrrctfHXPjqaDZznceKuUN__X-FvqUdvRHiKkuiriRd1UI61mHWUlFXRO3dffpdBssuN0ak1vfkngDQrcQqH8X2GNrv4cteigEKXORgFPTMindxXEImfi1LRv59iA1GSYuG1gK1VV8pBFggvNkm3L06rLkbLWyCv7g/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> *From: *Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> <mailto:orie@transmute.industries> *Date: *Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 9:00 PM *To: *Maarten Wullink <maarten.wull...@sidn.nl> <mailto:maarten.wull...@sidn.nl> *Cc: *Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> <mailto: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. Hi, I said that we heard 2 paths forward: - recharter / expand existing charter - new working group If you feel strongly about this topic, I welcome any comments on this list or to me or the chairs privately. There seems to be energy to do this work, I'll work with you all to find the right approach. Thanks to the authors and chairs for the presentation in today's meeting. Regards, OS, ART AD On Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 3:35 PM Maarten Wullink <maarten.wull...@sidn.nl> wrote: Hi All, Thank you all, for the comments and suggestions during our discussion earlier today about RESTful EPP. The Area Director suggested we create a new working group for this and similar work. If you are interested in joining us, to discuss and write a concept charter for this new WG, we have organised a side meeting for this on Thursday. Online participation is also an option, the URL will be added to the wiki shortly. Room: Tennyson Time: 1300-14:00 URL: https://wiki.ietf.org/en/meeting/120/sidemeetings <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1c9F5WwSIlo9XMwTM6J8h11yl1EFLkyVrgN49FLlBoU5AK1JtkdZWOQXZeb_ahBS4P7-6NDCZenNLquQrX1DhBv4IwG5IEbq5QtL28jON0grvoikwD3NBrQxAECXWpMStlRhicpWcAxc4eg9ndNHhEfE_wyMX8jlZQo-p_CXPWo6t1qpA-hinWx2NVZOmFpeSbg8tCtMpTNMh2QityccUZPuxP32j8EKsUYzixCGwClZBjQsCRKz0zq5NAtVBuYCwBMOEFkv3cZLstbB0BCGyuGOOCQtM2NsKPFYGZyhyYVc/https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fen%2Fmeeting%2F120%2Fsidemeetings> Best, Maarten _______________________________________________ regext mailing list --regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email toregext-le...@ietf.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
