RE: EPP over UDP for Domain Availability Checking?

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Message-ID <5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF01A6FFA5@vsvapostal8.vasrv.verisign.com>
> First, one has to presume that this is external to the PROVREG WG
> effort.  (The charter would forbid it on a number of grounds.) 
> Nevertheless, this ought to be considered - and recall that this list
> will outlive the WG.  (It's not a matter of scope for the list.)

Right -- I just figured that there are people on the list who might have an
interest in the topic.

> Who gets to be the client?  I would assume there are a lot more who
> would want this data than just the registrars.
> 
> How does this fit next to what the CRISP WG is chartered to do?  The
> difference between transports (UDP vs. connection oriented) is
> significant.

This is something that would need to be looked at.  Andy and I had a chance
to talk live yesterday; I think we both believe that there might be some use
cases that avoid an intersection with CRISP.  There _might_ be for a
registry that wants to deploy both protocols.  At a minimum, a light EPP UDP
<check> might be a useful feature for a registry that wants to deploy EPP,
but not the CRISP protocol.

Anyway, it's something to talk about over a beer in Minneapolis.

-Scott-
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.