Hi. Curious if the newly proposed “RESTful EPP” is considered a new protocol that is different from EPP, or is it an “extension” of EPP? (AFAICT, the former seems outside the current regext charter.)
Thanks, Jasdip From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 9:56 AM To: jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>, maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>, regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter 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
