> -----Original Message----- > From: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:15 AM > To: a...@hxr.us; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: regext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Charter question (was Re: CALL FOR > ADOPTION: draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over- > http) > > Andy, > > How about we add to draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext- > epp-over-http registration in the EPP extension registry, per RFC 7451? RFC > 7451 references both RFC 3735 for guidelines for extending EPP but also > references RFC 5730. RFC 3735 covers guidelines for extending the EPP packet > protocol and RFC 5730 covers extensibility of transports and the packet > protocol. I view all the EPP RFC's beyond EPP RFC 5730 as defining > extensions, which includes RFC 5734 for EoT. I don't believe there should be > any debate that EPP transports is a supported form of extensibility in RFC > 5730 and therefore the transports should be registered in the EPP extension > registry, and we can move on without touching the charter.
[SAH] I don't see anything in RFC 7451 that would preclude registration of a new transport mapping in the IANA EPP extension registry. Jim's proposal is worth considering. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
