Subject: [Ietf-not43] Using EPP for Crisp?

From: [email-masked] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:00:07 +0200

Since the recent DNSO report from the whois task force mentions using
EPP to replace whois (!), I wonder what is the current feeling about
this issue. The only thing I've found in the archives of provreg is:

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-01/msg00189.html

Any change since? Other things I should read before claiming that we
should merge provreg and crisp ? :-)

---

From: [email-masked] (Patrick)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:47:21 +0200

> EPP to replace whois (!), I wonder what is the current feeling about

(a probable error)
Issues related to EPP & whois are, I think, around the fact that at
least for now EPP-based Registries are thick instead of thin, in
which case REgistries are able to provide full whois support without
Registrars. This enables some topics discussed in the TF, as output
uniformization, etc...

> Any change since? 

I believe that the Provreg WG is clear about the fact that it is
designing a provisioning protocol and only that.
Feel free to bring the issue again on ietf-provreg right now.

> Other things I should read before claiming that we

There was a thread on ietf-whois about merging RRP & whois
(http://www.imc.org/ietf-whois/mail-archive/threads.html)
I believe most arguments would be the same for (or against in fact)
merging EPP & CRISP

If you claim this merging then please explain how you will handle the
following points for CRISP with EPP:
* a standard mechanism that can be used to determine the
authoritative server(s) for information about a given label 
* authentication and verification of data integrity 
as well as the following points from the requirements:
3.1.1 3.1.4 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8
3.2.4 3.2.8 3.2.9 
4.2 4.3

Those are just some pointers of problems I think that EPP can not handle
because it was not designed to do so.

Patrick.

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:37:26 -0400

This is a MIME-formatted message.  If you see this text it means that your
E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages.

--=_zark-6675-1028818052-0001-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree with Patrick.  Just a few comments in-line:

> > EPP to replace whois (!), I wonder what is the current feeling about

Is this in a new version of the report?  The last one I saw didn't say
this.

> Feel free to bring the issue again on ietf-provreg right now.

Actually, please DO NOT!  They have hashed through it and reached a
conclusion.  There is no reason to disturb their progress with this
issue.

> because it was not designed to do so.

Not that there is anything wrong with EPP.  They had a very specific
scope and have done a great job.  However, misunderstanding what they
have done and misusing their work will only lead to problems.

-andy
--=_zark-6675-1028818052-0001-2
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

--=_zark-6675-1028818052-0001-2--

---

From: [email-masked] (Patrick)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:53:25 +0200

> Is this in a new version of the report?  The last one I saw didn't say

In http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/20020625.TFwhois-report.htm
(an awfully bloated MS HTML file)
it is written:
...  and the results therefore do not take into account new
marketplace realities brought by the introduction of these TLDs
which, in general, provide centralized WHOIS data, in a standardized
(EPP) format.

This is the only sentence where you find the word EPP

This is why I said it is just an error I think . Like I said earlier,
I think that for non technical people, right now, EPP = thick
Registries = centralized whois.

> have done and misusing their work will only lead to problems.

I totally agree (I also participate in Provreg ;-)).

Patrick.