Hi Anthony, Exactly the same question as Patrick. As I'm not in the registrar world, but the registry world, I'm very interested in the use cases (or why) of EPP over HTTP instead of EPP over TCP. But very willing to collaborate if there's a case (not just because it is technically more fun to do)
Kind regards Pieter > On 23 May 2018, at 03:29, Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com> wrote: > > Hi Anthony, > > On Tue, May 22, 2018, at 18:09, Anthony Eden wrote: >> I've thrown together a repo over at GitHub to work on an EPP over HTTP >> draft (https://github.com/aeden/epp-over-http). I'd love to know if there >> are others from the community who are interested on collaborating. > > As I am sure you are aware, some registries currently uses HTTPS, like .IT > and .PL at least. > It may be a good idea, if not already, to try sharing discussions with them > and see if you can converge on something, if you are planning to do a > standard. > > You may also be aware that when EPP itself was drafted they were then > multiple other proposals for transport, besides TLS. There was at least SMTP > if I recall correctly and BXXP (BEEP) which I think does not really exist > anymore but it looks like to me that many of its features are also present > nowadays in HTTP/2. > > Maybe there are some ideas to grab from these past attempts, the documents > themselves or the discussions. > >> As a >> registrar, we'd love to be able to work with registries using HTTP as the >> transport protocol in the future. > > I am curious, why particularly prefering HTTP over TCP (or more precisely > HTTPS over TLS)? > > Did you tak time already to document the differences with TCP, in the realm > of EPP, what are the benefits and the drawbacks? > >> Note that the current version of this draft deals solely with EPP over HTTP >> 1.1, it does not consider HTTP 2 at this time. > > (I did not look at your code/document yet). > Why is it so? > Just a lack of time or some specific reason against HTTP/2? > > If there anything that works with HTTP/1.1 but not /2 it should be documented. > As nowadays, for new works, I think it is best to concentrate on the newer > versions of other standards when you do a layering (hence HTTP/2) instead > of forcing retro-compatibilies, except if good reasons for that of course, > this is what I am curious about. > > -- > Patrick Mevzek > > _______________________________________________ > 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
