On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 2:49 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
>
> [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.
>
> Sect
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 aga
Andy,
We covered this previously, that based on the language of Section 2.1 of RFC
5730, EPP transports is a form of extension. The reason that it's not covered
in RFC 3735 is because a transport is not a packet protocol extension
mechanism. No recharter is necessary.
--
JG
James Gou
Hi Andy,
On 05.02.25 21:41, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Hi all,
We, the author team, have posted a new version of this draft. This
reflects 22 closed issues from the tracker, and these are noted in the
draft text with an aside.
All that said, I think our efforts to do carve-outs based on exist
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Newton (andy)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:26 PM
> To: James Galvin
> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Charter question (was Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION:
> draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext-epp-o
