Hi Thomas, On 05.03.26 18:53, Thomas Corte wrote:
So far the experience of registries offering HTTP-based APIs alongside of EPP, found an acceptance of over 40% of the registrars. Especially smaller ones and new ones. There was a lot on this in RPP BoF [1].Define "acceptance". As I said before, silence doesn't mean acceptance. Complaining will hardly ever change a registry's determination to do the wrong thing; especially ccTLDs have a monopoly, and they'll use that to get away with all kinds of bad tech.
I refer to registries who offer both EPP and API. "Acceptance" means that given a choice between EPP and HTTP-based API, 40% registrars have chosen API. This has nothing to do with silence and no complaining.
What e.g. .es or .cz are doing can hardly be called EPP anymore.
This is true, and this is why one of the first activities in RPP dev was to make an analysis how people extended (per spec but also breaking the spec) EPP in order to make in better in RPP.
My conversations with other, also bigger registrars were along the lines: we would love to use RESTful APIs but please come around with a standard, which will work same with many TLDs, not singular solutions.There is a standard, and it's called EPP over TCP. I can't imagine any registrar who hasn't at least implemented it for the big TLDs like .com/.net/.org/.info etc., so they must have a client in place. What's the problem with using that client for other TLDs?
How long would you envision this standard shall remain and still be applicable and valid? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Long running TCP/TLS connections are problem for both clients and servers. The clients learned to workaround it, by using one command per session pattern - most of the sessions we see are login/command/logout.
Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
