Il 22/03/2024 13:01, Gould, James ha scritto:
Andy,
It's not a question of fairness, but a question of what is defined in EPP RFC
5730 as it comes to extensibility of EPP. EPP RFC 5730 includes extensibility
of transport, as reflected in Section 2.1.
This is what I meant to say with my previous post.
Mapping EPP over a new transport is compliant with RFC5730 because it's
a kind of extension defined and allowed by that document itself.
Otherwise I do wonder what would be the purpose of Section 2.1.
On the contrary, as expressed by many of us including me, REPP would be
something different from EPP , hence it would require to recharter
RegExt. Otherwise I wouldn't catch the purpose of the feedback provided
by this WG about first EoH version
to require it to be fully compliant with RFC5730. And that version was
really almost compliant with RFC5730.
Finally, I'd allso like to outline that some time ago I provided Maarten
with a more comprehensive feedback about REPP on CENTR R&D list. It
included the objections I have just raised here.
Am sure that I've always been fair.
Best,
Mario
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
