One question that was raised by Patrick Mevzek on the mailing list was
associated with signaling the implementation of a BCP by the server that I
believe would also apply to the client. This question applies to the two
REGEXT BCP drafts draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer and
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces. The only existing signaling mechanism
in EPP is the use of the greeting and login services. A namespace URI could be
assigned for each BCP draft that is included as an <objURI> or an <extURI> in
the greeting to inform the client of the support of the BCP by the server, and
in the login command to inform the server of the support of the BCP by the
client. Between the two options, I prefer the use of the <extURI>. The
questions for the working group include:
1. Is signaling needed in EPP for the implementation of BCPs?
2. If signaling is needed:
* Will the existing signaling mechanism in EPP with the greeting and
login services meet the purpose?
* Of the two service URIs <objURI> and <extURI>, which is the preferred
URI to use?
* What URI scheme should be used?
i. One proposal is to
include bcp in the namespace, such as
“urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:secure-authinfo-transfer-<version>” and
“urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-<version>”. The <version>
would be updated based on material updates to the BCP draft and bumped to 1.0
after WGLC.
Please reply to the list with your feedback.
Thanks,
--
JG
[cid:[email protected]]
James Gould
Distinguished 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/>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
