Hi Jim,I see it the same way as you do, that the use of http in EoH to "tunnel" EPP payloads is equivalent to the use of http in DoH RFC 8484.
HTTP CONNECT would fail to fulfil design objectives of this extension (more cloud friendly deployment).
Mark's proposals are reasonable and understandable, however we had this discussion in REGEXT already, that such radical change to map all EPP commands to http semantics would require a major rework to the protocol, which would not be RFC 5730 EPP anymore, but something else. This is where we started the work on RPP, as an approach fully leveraging on http and following recommendations of BCP56.
BCP56 in Section 2 is quite direct in saying that either you use http and BCP56 applies, or if not then define something else and don't call it http. It's quite a hard call. On the flip side BCP56 contains few normative MUST/MUST NOTs and I think it is worth a review which of them, if any, are indeed violated and whether the draft could address them better.
Kind Regards, Pawel On 03.02.26 16:06, Gould, James wrote:
I'm following up to my prior response for the REGEXT working group to weigh in on this. I believe that draft-ietf-regext-epp-https (EoH) does not apply to BCP56, since it's defining a transport for an existing application protocol, just like DNS over HTTP (DoH) in RFC 8484. The goal of EoH is to provide a Cloud-friendly transport for the EPP application protocol that is compliant with section 2.1 of RFC 5730. The definition of Cloud-friendly was provided in the prior message below. Please review the draft and provide your feedback, since the draft is ready for WGLC using the current approach. Thanks,-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 1/5/26, 1:10 PM, "Gould, James" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Mark, Thank you for your reply. In reviewing Section 2 of BCP56, draft-ietf-regext-epp-https (EoH) is using HTTP, but EoH is not defining a new application protocol. I don't believe EoH is applicable to BCP56, since it's defining a HTTP transport for an existing application protocol of EPP. How would DNS over HTTP (DoH) in RFC 8484 apply to BCP56, since it defines an HTTP transport for an existing application protocol of DNS? I realize that DoH was defined prior to BCP56, but would you have the same recommendation of using the CONNECT HTTP method over GET and POST? If we did agree that BCP56 was applicable, can you provide a list of BCP56 violations with EoH? Cloud-friendly means that an EoH can be deployed to a public cloud provider without the need to build a custom gateway, like is the case of the existing EoT in RFC 5734. The CONNECT method wouldn't work with a L7 load balancer, which would be the main advantage of using EoH in a cloud environment. EoH makes EPP sessions independent of TCP connections. Along with using a L7 load balancer, it makes an EPP server more flexible, scalable and fault tolerant. Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> <http://verisigninc.com/>> On 12/29/25, 7:57 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: 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 James, Regarding whether you're building a protocol with HTTP, see Section 2 of BCP56. If you don't fit those criteria, it indeed isn't using HTTP, but your draft isn't clear about that. The approach you've taken is to tunnel the protocol over POST. As I said, the safer, better approach if your intent is to tunnel would be to use HTTP's dedicated tunnelling method, CONNECT. HTTP is not a transport protocol, it's a representation transfer protocol. There are many benefits to using it well, including operability, scalability, and security improvements - ones that may not be apparent immediately but are likely to be appreciated in time (at least, that's our experience in deploying many HTTP-based protocols). What does "cloud-friendly" mean? Cheers,On 2 Dec 2025, at 1:36 am, Gould, James <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: Mark, Thank you for reviewing draft-ietf-regext-epp-https. Can you provide a list of BCP56 violations with draft-ietf-regext-epp-https? What's important to understand with EoH (draft-ietf-regext-epp-https) is that it's not building a protocol with HTTP but defining an application packet protocol transport based on an existing IETF standard protocol. The only HTTP actions needed as a packet protocol transport is to establish a stateful session and to push packets. Intermingling the application packet protocol semantics with the HTTP semantics by mapping the EPP command types to HTTP methods adds complexity with no defined benefit. Use of the CONNECT method doesn't match the intent of enabling EPP to be Cloud-friendly, since CONNECT is a specialized method that creates a pure tunnel (e.g., having EoT tunnel through HTTP). Can you clarify the interoperability concerns? Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190Verisign.com<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1HBfWxc3rSLo8-JlnTCv8UuQJ7L33Ftu57xslVdB9Dl9hGo6XcCGaOcAIRKpaTtwnGNTDjmlvH5qvxtvnCphtQWCoygFXoTczFrh7uwiE1uE1vsZpXMnKUP0ejMM-fNayWZt038WfcGMPuytMu-3WI5BsWFoQkUOPDQz5mBV9MYB_Z2VliIwLnrNwjdeG0l3cftzkKIFO036cnjxMj7yRyTYHkEpSoX6HsHuocCWFVS9T3ENS8o2o-uTSRtVcWd6Zxt41OOO2F4hw9URThTqjn1pYp_dvdtC1NbbPbIKXpP4/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1HBfWxc3rSLo8-JlnTCv8UuQJ7L33Ftu57xslVdB9Dl9hGo6XcCGaOcAIRKpaTtwnGNTDjmlvH5qvxtvnCphtQWCoygFXoTczFrh7uwiE1uE1vsZpXMnKUP0ejMM-fNayWZt038WfcGMPuytMu-3WI5BsWFoQkUOPDQz5mBV9MYB_Z2VliIwLnrNwjdeG0l3cftzkKIFO036cnjxMj7yRyTYHkEpSoX6HsHuocCWFVS9T3ENS8o2o-uTSRtVcWd6Zxt41OOO2F4hw9URThTqjn1pYp_dvdtC1NbbPbIKXpP4/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1HBfWxc3rSLo8-JlnTCv8UuQJ7L33Ftu57xslVdB9Dl9hGo6XcCGaOcAIRKpaTtwnGNTDjmlvH5qvxtvnCphtQWCoygFXoTczFrh7uwiE1uE1vsZpXMnKUP0ejMM-fNayWZt038WfcGMPuytMu-3WI5BsWFoQkUOPDQz5mBV9MYB_Z2VliIwLnrNwjdeG0l3cftzkKIFO036cnjxMj7yRyTYHkEpSoX6HsHuocCWFVS9T3ENS8o2o-uTSRtVcWd6Zxt41OOO2F4hw9URThTqjn1pYp_dvdtC1NbbPbIKXpP4/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1HBfWxc3rSLo8-JlnTCv8UuQJ7L33Ftu57xslVdB9Dl9hGo6XcCGaOcAIRKpaTtwnGNTDjmlvH5qvxtvnCphtQWCoygFXoTczFrh7uwiE1uE1vsZpXMnKUP0ejMM-fNayWZt038WfcGMPuytMu-3WI5BsWFoQkUOPDQz5mBV9MYB_Z2VliIwLnrNwjdeG0l3cftzkKIFO036cnjxMj7yRyTYHkEpSoX6HsHuocCWFVS9T3ENS8o2o-uTSRtVcWd6Zxt41OOO2F4hw9URThTqjn1pYp_dvdtC1NbbPbIKXpP4/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F&gt;>>On 11/30/25, 5:41 PM, "Mark Nottingham via Datatracker" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: 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. Document: draft-ietf-regext-epp-https Title: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over HTTPS Reviewer: Mark Nottingham Review result: Not Ready This draft violates many aspects of BCP56, and needs substantial revision to address that. That's because it's tunnelling a protocol over HTTP semantics (primarily POST). Doing so prevents many benefits of using HTTP from being realised and may cause deployment issues. I would recommend mapping the semantics of EPP more faithfully to HTTP -- e.g., <create> to PUT, <delete> to DELETE. This would be a substantially new version of EPP but would be much more integrated into the HTTP ecosystem. We can look for volunteers from the HTTP community to help with this direction if there's interest. Failing that, if the authors wish to tunnel, they should do so using CONNECT rather than over HTTP semantics (such as POST). The draft has other issues (including interoperability concerns) that I won't list here as the decision above needs to be made first.-- Mark Nottinghamhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1GIoLtqb3sFhOpgHUmBetlXn0_dCNquVEOjlzHhsHkwUuK_Mm1PHu3Qh-a4NP3z8LBKs92L6k7py3mE-yQoQnsqzfSyIRhcWCo4BwJCRWXKMErt6rSFq_vhjrljB1gWShCVbAGZHh2a7dmF58WckNp37FcRas-vQzGAgHkSeAvipWtl1DzLm_euZp79N5t6LdZ5rW2nyAwihaHsN3chtzDh1vBVodkpRMVaP2D0hkDHvXx6cT1rvpvHQ1QUo1woSOrMjJ-e6_tTB0JGUn0yhB5dJ_VgWpgptk8bifpxEYYEA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1GIoLtqb3sFhOpgHUmBetlXn0_dCNquVEOjlzHhsHkwUuK_Mm1PHu3Qh-a4NP3z8LBKs92L6k7py3mE-yQoQnsqzfSyIRhcWCo4BwJCRWXKMErt6rSFq_vhjrljB1gWShCVbAGZHh2a7dmF58WckNp37FcRas-vQzGAgHkSeAvipWtl1DzLm_euZp79N5t6LdZ5rW2nyAwihaHsN3chtzDh1vBVodkpRMVaP2D0hkDHvXx6cT1rvpvHQ1QUo1woSOrMjJ-e6_tTB0JGUn0yhB5dJ_VgWpgptk8bifpxEYYEA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1GIoLtqb3sFhOpgHUmBetlXn0_dCNquVEOjlzHhsHkwUuK_Mm1PHu3Qh-a4NP3z8LBKs92L6k7py3mE-yQoQnsqzfSyIRhcWCo4BwJCRWXKMErt6rSFq_vhjrljB1gWShCVbAGZHh2a7dmF58WckNp37FcRas-vQzGAgHkSeAvipWtl1DzLm_euZp79N5t6LdZ5rW2nyAwihaHsN3chtzDh1vBVodkpRMVaP2D0hkDHvXx6cT1rvpvHQ1QUo1woSOrMjJ-e6_tTB0JGUn0yhB5dJ_VgWpgptk8bifpxEYYEA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1GIoLtqb3sFhOpgHUmBetlXn0_dCNquVEOjlzHhsHkwUuK_Mm1PHu3Qh-a4NP3z8LBKs92L6k7py3mE-yQoQnsqzfSyIRhcWCo4BwJCRWXKMErt6rSFq_vhjrljB1gWShCVbAGZHh2a7dmF58WckNp37FcRas-vQzGAgHkSeAvipWtl1DzLm_euZp79N5t6LdZ5rW2nyAwihaHsN3chtzDh1vBVodkpRMVaP2D0hkDHvXx6cT1rvpvHQ1QUo1woSOrMjJ-e6_tTB0JGUn0yhB5dJ_VgWpgptk8bifpxEYYEA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F>> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
