Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

On Thu, May 31, 2018, at 05:13, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > we have been keen to architect the system that will interact > between the Registries and the Registrar to run within the public cloud. > Azure and or AWS. We had a discussion the other day about using Azure > Functions but had to

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Hi! In the discussion on http/1.1 or http/2, I would like to mention, that registries have a special kind of customers, the snapback registrars. An unfiltered http/2 would allow them to use a lot of resources on the registry side. And these people really do try to get it all. That is not really

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

conversation about the Registries using REST? Cheers Ryan -Original Message- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 10:18 PM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

On Wed, May 23, 2018, at 13:46, Anthony Eden wrote: > I do see mentions of SMTP and BEEP in RFC 5730 in the transport discussion, > but none of them ever became standards, right? You are correct, after all discussions, only EPP over TLS was defined as transport. I was able to find the following

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Gould, James

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Hi Anthony, I would be pleased to collaborate directly. Looking back to my previous response, thare are many other issues coming in my mind that I would like to discuss. At a first sight, .it implementation seems basically the same as described by James. I don't want to be too verbose now but

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Anthony, I reviewed your draft. We implemented EPP over HTTP a while back, where HTTP was treated as transport in line with EPP over TCP (RFC 5734). It was shut down when it became clear that EPP over TCP was the preferred option. The difference with your draft and our implementation is

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Patrick, Thanks for your thoughts and questions, I do appreciate it. Response inline... On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Patrick Mevzek 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

Re: [regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

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

[regext] Interest in collaborating on an EPP over HTTP draft?

Greetings folks! 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 a registrar, we'd love to be able to work with registries using