> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:26 PM > To: James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com> > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Charter question (was Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: > draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http) > > 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, > > The work of REGEXT is to define extensions for EPP and RDAP, hence the "EXT" > in the name. With regards to the adoption calls for I-Ds specifying new > transports to EPP, where does this fall within the charter? It has been > stated > that transports are EPP extensions, but that argument cuts against the > current > RFCs. RFC 5730 discusses transports in section 2.1, separate from protocol > extensions in Section 2.7. And RFC 3735 lists 4 types of EPP extensions, > none > being transports, and includes the sentence "EPP extensions MUST be > specified in XML."
[SAH] Andy, I don't believe that the argument cuts against the current RFCs. RFC 5734 exists because EPP was designed to be transport-independent. If that wasn't the case, TCP transport would have been specified in RFC 5730. Section 2.1 of 5730 describes considerations for an EPP transport mapping. It exists because the design assumption was that additional transport mappings would be specified in the future. They're not protocol extensions per se, because they're not adding or changing protocol functionality. That's why they're not directly addressed in RFC 3735, but the ability to define new transport mappings is definitely a feature of EPP. Our charter could be interpreted to limit our work to extensions that would be registered in the IANA extension registry. A new transport mapping wouldn't be registered in the extension registry, so a strict interpretation of the charter might preclude work on these drafts. That's a topic worthy of an AD opinion. > As there does appear to be energy in the group to work on new EPP > transports, would the group be willing to recharter to include the scope of > I-Ds > under discussion? [SAH] Yes, I'm willing to do that. If our charter precludes work on new transport mappings, that's a defect that needs to be fixed. I'm hoping, though, that a more liberal interpretation of the charter will recognize that EPP was designed to be extended by defining new transport mappings, and that design decision means that such mappings are in-scope. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
