1 step process may be perfectly compatible with a legacy system which require a 2 step process, just needs an orchestration layer in between that would split a request. This is what most registrar systems do btw.

The question is whether RPP would need to support 2 steps nevertheless, out of a factual reason that a client would want or need to complete step 1 without completing the step 2.

Kind Regards,

Pawel

On 04.11.25 17:22, James Galvin wrote:
I don’t know why either.

I wasn’t involved in this early work directly.  I’ll also note that ICANN 
processes were not quite as formal back then as they are today, so there are 
historical details that just aren’t available.

What I will suggest though, is if the RPP doesn’t believe it needs the 2 step 
process and you’d like to go forward without it, the larger architectural 
question the IETF/RPP needs to ask is if it will ensure supporting 
transitioning from the use of it to not using it.  This is a technical 
backwards compatibility question not an ICANN policy question.

Is backwards compatibility with legacy systems a desired goal, or not?

Jim


On 4 Nov 2025, at 10:42, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Maarten Wullink <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] [rpp] RGP (RFC3915) Restore report why?

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.

Scott, et al.

reading the referenced documents i have a hard time finding what the actual
arguments were for the 2 step process.

would it also not have been possible to do a single restore operation that
contains the report?
the registrar, at the time of restore request, already knows the previous
registration data and the current registration data ( registrant)

and this is not something ICANN ORG mandates of course, its a result of the
community process.
so updating RGP should also be driven by ICANN community.
[SAH] I don't know what the rationale was, either. We were just stuck with the 
outcome.

Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to