Maarten, The charter refers to EPP extensions, which transports is a form of an EPP extension. RFC 5730 defines the extension points for EPP and includes support for extending the transports based on Section 2.1 “Transport Mapping Considerations”. I don’t believe that there is a need to revise the REGEXT charter to support the additional of new EPP transports.
Thanks, -- JG [cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40] James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Maarten Wullink <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 7:37 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" <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 sender and know the content is safe. 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 name, if possible? Or do we need to create a new WG for work related to EPP evolution such as new transport protocols? Best, Maarten
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
