Hi, <rant> After the discussion we had in Prague my impression was that the group was open to consider approaches that go beyond just exchanging the transport. And as Maarten already highlighted in Prague there is an immersing need to have provisioning protocol in form of REST API with JSON representation, which is now being addressed with not compatible singular solutions already which call for standardisation effort at least to start. The group gave a guidance how to proceed which was followed and now the charter card starts to be played… kind of inconsistent. If the charter poses an issue to proceed let’s discuss what is the best way to address it. I am still of an opinion that this WG is the best group of people with the right expertise to move this topic forward. </rant>
Kind regards Pawel Kowalik > Am 22.03.2024 um 01:18 schrieb Maarten Wullink > <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>: > > > RFC5730 Section 2.7 describes how to extend the XML data model to create a > new EPP extension. > and the transport considerations in section 2.1 describe how to create a new > transport mapping. > > The charter then considers both to be types of an EPP extension, this works > for me. > but it does seem there is some ambiguity there. > > Maarten > >> >> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> 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 or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >> content is safe. >> >> 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. >> [SAH] Agreed. New transport mappings are just another type of extension as >> long as they preserve the data model described in RFC 5730. >> >> Scott > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
