n old axiom about the
>> IETF not standardizing APIs, but we've already done RDAP. Maybe this is
>> similar.
>>
>> If the answer is "specify a web service that's EPP-ish", I agree that
>> rechartering is probably necessary.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
On Behalf Of George Michaelson
>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:15 PM
>> To: regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re-chartering REGEXT?
>>
>> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
>> links
>> or open attachme
m: regext On Behalf Of George Michaelson
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:15 PM
To: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re-chartering REGEXT?
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
r is "specify a web service that's EPP-ish", I agree that
> rechartering is probably necessary.
>
> Scott
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: regext On Behalf Of George Michaelson
>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:15 PM
>> To: regext@ietf.org
>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:15 PM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re-chartering REGEXT?
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the conten
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.
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
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 wind up having
to talk about it. Of course it's irritating from a perspective of RDAP
and EPP
Andy,
REPP is not a transport, but a new provisioning protocol that is not supported
in the existing charter. If you believe REPP is a transport, please describe
how it complies with section 2.1 of RFC 5730.
Thanks,
--
JG
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
Maarten,
I think proposing some charter text is a good idea.
And I support this if the charter is to be used to exclude some
proposals for EPP transports but not others, as has been argued.
-andy
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:59 PM Maarten Wullink
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> The REGEXT WG
Hello everyone,
The REGEXT WG charter seems to be limited to only allow work on EPP extensions?
The WG preliminary consensus is that updating the charter for new transports
(requires RFC5730, sec 2.1 compliance) is not required.
Because a new transport is regarded as a type of extension, so for
16 matches
Mail list logo
