Hi Maarten, > On 25 Apr 2024, at 13:10, Maarten Wullink > <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> I would encourage you to be explicit in the objectives you're seeking to >> achieve with this proposal, since "scalability" is insufficient to justify >> most of what's proposed in your draft. > > Improved scalability is one the stated goals and It’s true that just by > adding HTTP support, EPP would be able to leverage all of the scalability > features provided by HTTP. > > However, by using named resources in the URL (as is a feature of REST) it > would also be possible to include more advanced forms of load balancing, such > as routing requests based on the request URL pattern. An example would be a > configuration where informational requests such the CHECK and INFO are > separated from the creational requests such as CREATE and UPDATE.
[snip] > We added a new XML schema in our last version to better align the EPP XML to > the RESTful style, if this is a blocking issue, then we can remove the new > XML schema in the next version and go back to using the XML schema from RFC > 5730. Thanks for providing this context, it's helpful to understand what the objectives are. As I understand it, the rationale is to move some protocol elements from the XML to elsewhere in the HTTP message so that these can be used to control routing, caching, load balancing, etc. *Copying* these elements would achieve the same effect, and altering the XML schema just to avoid duplication throws the baby out of the bathwater. I would strongly recommend that the schemas from RFCs 5730-5733 remain unchanged. G. -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
