> -Original Message-
> From: Maarten Wullink
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:15 AM
> To: Gould, James
> Cc: a...@hxr.us; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; jasd...@arin.net; Hollenbeck,
> Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EPP evolution a
REPPP is not a transport, it’s much more than that. And changing RFC 5730 has a
trickle-down effect to some of the EPP users that might be unwanted, like the
gTLD space.
But rechartering this WG seems the most logical course of action, since this
audience is likely the one for discussing
Maarten,
The scope of an EPP transport is limited and is specifically defined in Section
2.1 of RFC 5730. Defining a stateless protocol that has additional options for
the command and response format is not EPP and not an EPP transport. SMTP
being referenced in RFC 5730 doesn't make it a
Hi James,
>
> An EPP transport mapping must fully comply RFC 5730 and specifically Section
> 2.1 of RFC 5730. REPP defines application-level protocol aspects that do not
> comply with RFC 5730, such as being stateless,
When RFC5730 section 2.1 was written, an EPP deployment as a stateless
> -Original Message-
> From: Maarten Wullink
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 3:56 AM
> To: Gould, James
> Cc: a...@hxr.us; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; jasd...@arin.net; Hollenbeck,
> Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EPP evolution a
...@dmarc.ietf.org>
>>> <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>>
>>> <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>
>>> <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>
lto:40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org
>>> <mailto:40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org>>>
>>> Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 9:56 AM
>>> To: jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org
>>> <mailto:40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org>
>>> <mailto:40verisign
.@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> > mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>>>,
>
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
is different from EPP, or is it an “extension” of EPP? (AFAICT, the
> > former seems outside the current regext charter.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jasdip
> >
> >
> >
> > From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on
&
mailto:40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
> maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>
> mailto:40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
> regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [regext
Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 9:56 AM
> To: jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org
> ,
> maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org
> , regext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
>
> From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James
> Sent: Thurs
,
jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org ,
maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org
, regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
Hi Jasdip,
IMO, REPP is not an "EPP extension" as defined by RFC5730. It provides neither
just a switch of transport
on behalf of Hollenbeck,
Scott
*Date: *Friday, March 22, 2024 at 9:56 AM
*To: *jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org
,
maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org
, regext@ietf.org
*Subject: *Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
*From:*regext *On Behalf Of *Gould, James
*Sent:* Thurs
> for me.
> but it does seem there is some ambiguity there.
>
> Maarten
>
>>
>> From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James
>> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 PM
>> To: maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re
there is some ambiguity there.
Maarten
From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 PM
To: maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
Caution: This email originated from outside
at 9:56 AM
To: jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org
,
maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org
, regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 PM
To: maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org
From: regext On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 PM
To: maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links
> On 21 Mar 2024, at 23:49, Gould, James
> wrote:
>
> I don’t believe that there is a need to revise the REGEXT charter to support
> the additional of new EPP transports.
+1
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
behalf of Maarten Wullink
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 7:37 PM
To: "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the
Hi all,
Is the charter for the REGEXT WG limited to working on EPP XML extensions only?
If so, what is then required for allowing the different new transport proposals
to continue? A new transport is clearly something different.
Do we need to expand the current charter and maybe change the WG
21 matches
Mail list logo
