> > EPP IS the domain registration standard. > > Might be. > > As much as I have a soft spot for it, its far from being an industry > standard. RRP is used for far more registrations than EPP is and will > continue to be unless (when?) VGRS migrates to EPP. > > It also has yet to be deployed as a provisioning protocol > beyond the domain > market and into environments/markets where other constructs (like > SOAP/XML-RPC and even REST-type interfaces) are much more predominant.
Here's some further info re: EPP out of the IETF today. EPP is now officially a "proposed standard" (for more on what that means, read here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt) ------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:50:20 -0400 From: The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: RFC Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Internet Architecture Board <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ietf-provreg] Protocol Action: Extensible Provisioning Protocol to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following Internet-Drafts as Proposed Standards: o Extensible Provisioning Protocol <draft-ietf-provreg-epp-09.txt> o Extensible Provisioning Protocol Domain Name Mapping <draft-ietf-provreg-epp-domain-07.txt> o Extensible Provisioning Protocol Host Mapping <draft-ietf-provreg-epp-host-07.txt> o Extensible Provisioning Protocol Contact Mapping <draft-ietf-provreg-epp-contact-07.txt> o Extensible Provisioning Protocol Transport Over TCP <draft-ietf-provreg-epp-tcp-06.txt> These documents are the product of the Provisioning Registry Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom. Technical Summary These documents describes an application layer client-server protocol for the provisioning and management of objects stored in a shared central repository. Specified in XML, the protocol defines generic object management operations and an extensible framework that maps protocol operations to objects. Further, object definitions of a few objects needed for domain name registration and a binding to TCP as transport protocl is provided. Working Group Summary There has been discussions in the wg whether the binding to TCP should be the only binding, whether other bindings like SMTP and Beep is "better" or "required" and during last call whether the protcol itself should be asynchronous or not. Result of these discussions ended up with TCP as one extension mechanism of many possible ones (SMTP and Beep bindings in separate documents), and that the protocol itself should be synchronous. This last point make the protocol simpler, but will possibly make some bindings more complicated. The changes had concensus in the working group, and resulted in the version of the documents which are now approved. Protocol Quality The specification has been reviewed by Patrik Faltstrom for the IESG. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:57 PM > To: Tim Woodcock; Adam Selene > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Feature Request: SOAP or XML-RPC API > > > > EPP IS the domain registration standard. > > Might be. > > As much as I have a soft spot for it, its far from being an industry > standard. RRP is used for far more registrations than EPP is and will > continue to be unless (when?) VGRS migrates to EPP. > > It also has yet to be deployed as a provisioning protocol > beyond the domain > market and into environments/markets where other constructs (like > SOAP/XML-RPC and even REST-type interfaces) are much more predominant. > > > -rwr > > > > > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org > > "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of > thought which they seldom use." > - Soren Kierkegaard > >
