It appears to me that we are putting the carriage before the horse in this
discussion. I would suggest to write a milestone like “a RESTy EPP” but not too
much details to leave room for what it will finally be, and leave the
discussion on how it is implemented, how much it is really an EPP
I think there's a basic question to be answered first: what's the goal?
If the answer is "a RESTful API for EPP", it might be possible to do that
within the confines of the existing charter if it can be done without changing
any of the existing core EPP RFCs. There's an old axiom about the IETF
Hello
I fully agree with you.
Regards
marco
On 16.04.24 01:14, George Michaelson wrote:
I don't think the new protocol is just a new transport *LAYER* but I
also do support re-charter to include consideration of this protocol
suite.
My reasoning is that we're the people who are going to
Hi all,
This version of the draft incorporates Rick's feedback as discussed last week.
Chairs: I would like to request Working Group Last Call for this document.
Thanks,
Gavin.
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-08.txt is now available. It is a work
> item of the Registration
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-08.txt is now available. It is a work
item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF.
Title: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for DNS Time-To-Live
(TTL) values
Author: Gavin Brown
Name:
Hi.
Agreed. For REPP, should be more productive to update the regext charter to
help leverage the expertise from this WG.
Jasdip
From: regext on behalf of Maarten Wullink
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 2:23 AM
To: George Michaelson
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] Re-chartering
Thanks George. I agree.
-andy
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 4:14 PM George Michaelson wrote:
>
> I don't think the new protocol is just a new transport *LAYER* but I
> also do support re-charter to include consideration of this protocol
> suite.
>
> My reasoning is that we're the people who are going
Hi Mario,
On 16.04.24 09:39, Mario Loffredo wrote:
However, let me just say that it appears a bit inconsistent to me that
we have almost finished to turn RDAP from stateless into stateful and
we are now planning to start a discussion about how to make EPP to go
opposite !?!
You mean the
Thank you George. This working group should be the venue for such
discussion and if re-chartering is the only clean way forward I'd be
also supportive here.
Kind Regards,
Pawel
On 16.04.24 01:14, George Michaelson wrote:
I don't think the new protocol is just a new transport *LAYER* but I
I also believe that REPP is not just a switch of transport as it
proposes to move some of the EPP features from the application layer to
the transport layer.
Hence rechartering is a pre-condition to peacefully start a discussion
about REPP features.
However, let me just say that it appears
Hi George and others,
>
>
> The protocol is in the registry-registrar and client-registrar
> interaction space we work on.
Thank you George, that was just the point i was trying to make.
For the re-charter discussion It does not really matter if we define something
such as REPP to be a
11 matches
Mail list logo
