IETF 122 - RPP
Date: Monday 17 March 2025
Time: 13:00 - 15:00 ICT (06:00 - 08:00 UTC)
Note takers: Richard Wilhelm, Caspar Schutijser
Chair slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-rpp-1-chair-slides-02
Agenda items
Administrivia [10 min]
Agenda Bashing, Blue Sheets, Note Well, etc. [5 min]
- Agenda was bashed, we were Well-Noted, and scribes were
press-ganged.
A word from the ADs, no slides [5 min]
Orie:
- Thx to everyone for engaging
- If any questions about process, just reach out to WG chairs
Working Group Business
WG Operation [10 min]
Various Updates [35 min]
-
Hackathon Recap (M. Wullink) [10 min]
- Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-rpp-hackathon-rpp-01
- Maarten provides updates from these slides
- TL;DR: Working code for RPP domain create use case was
functional... end-to-end; expect more at the Madrid Hackathon
(Slides contain links to github repos)
- Discussion:
- J. Reid: Has any of this been written up? Maaten: not yet...
but planning on doing so, probably on the wiki
- Pavel: Related to this question, might discuss if time
allows
-
CENTR Survey Insights (P. Kowalik) [10 min]
-
EPP Extensibility & Extensions – Tiger Team Progress Update (J.
Gould) [10 min]
- Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-rpp-epp-extensibility-and-extension-analysis-update-00
- Jim Gould presented (remotely) from the above slides
- Tiger Team output is in this googledoc.
- Context is that this Tiger Team got together to consider
extension scope and requirements for RPP, given the historical
context of the installed base of EPP extensitions.
- If there are any additional extensions that should be analyzed,
let the team know.
- Discussion:
- Andy (in chat): Seems like embedding (and extension) might
make RPP unusable for non-domain use cases.
- R. Wilhelm: thanks to Jim and others in the Tiger Team. Have
not seen such a comprehensive document with all EPP
extensions.
-
Open mic for clarifying questions [5 min]
Requirements [20 min]
- Further Exploration + discussion (M. Wullink) [10+10 min]
- Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-rpp-rpp-requirements-01
- Maarten presented using the above slides about an approach of
specifying requirements, and about groups of requirements to
think about
-
Discussion:
- J. Gould on API: in EPP, a server must validate input from
clients. (Whereas in RDAP, it doesn't.) What should RPP do
about partially understood messages? Maarten: Deserves
further study.
- P. Kowalik on Data Representation: yaml could be a future
extension
- J. Gould on Data Representation: as for data formats, should
be considered separately from REST transport layer.
- Q Missel on Data Representation: ideally one format, then
there's no issue with mismatch between what client and
server offers. Maarten: indeed it's possible we'll go with
just JSON. Q: that would be my preference.
- P. Kowalik on Data Representation: We wanted to maintain
some flexibility for this, based on the learnings from EPP.
- J. Reid on Data Representation: it's important to have
flexibility w.r.t. data formats, but there should be at
least one data format which is mandatory to support.
- J. Reid on Discoverability: concerned about putting hooks in
there for discovery mechanisms. Is going to overly
complicate the protocol. Perhaps keep that out of the
protocol, it should be in the contract between the Registry
and the Registrar. (That is, it's policy.) Maarten: indeed,
if there's not a clear use case we should not include it.
- G. Brown on Discoverability: it's worth differentiating
between discoverability of where RPP servers are located and
functionality of the RPP server. Maarten: you are right.
- P. Kowalik on Discoverability: Urging caution about
overapplying the principles of hypermedia
- J. Gould on EPP Compatibility: most important aspect is the
data model itself. When designing EPP, we were careful with
how the existing extensions are approached. Perhaps regext
group can facilitate extensions to RPP (after a recharter),
then the RPP WG does not have to work on everything.
- C. Simmen on EPP Compatibility: Tiger Team has mentioned
they experiences various extensions of different kinds.
There are data extensions, procss extensions. Maybe there
are solutions not the same for differnt types of extensions.
I would consider research.
- Orie on EPP Compatibility: WG is not chartered to extend
EPP. These are two separate WGs. There is not a requirement
for comparibility. If there is a need to coordinate or
create something that's inspired by this WG, then take that
over there.
- Maarten: Yup... agreed.
-
J. Galvin on Security: re: Transfer. There is a new domain
transfer model coming in gTLDs that doesn't use the AuthInfo
code. Also look at a new doc in REGEXT for PKI in transfers.
- Editor: the new ICANN Transfer Policy is available
here. Look for text related to the Transfer
Authorization Code"
-
J. Gould on Security: very interested what Jim has to say
about that. We should be careful related to trying to get
creative associated with things like authinfo code
interoperability with EPP.
Architecture [20 min]
- Initial Thoughts + discussion (P. Kowalik) [10+10 min]
WG Operation (part 2)
- Deliverables / Milestones [10 min]
- Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-rpp-chair-slides-milestones-deliverables-revised-00
- Gavin presented using the chair slides (9 onward)
- Gavin came back and presented at the 1h 44m mark in the meeting
- Gavin's slides had the addl milestone of "WG consense on
Requirements" as Sep 2025"
- Discussion:
- J. Gould: suggesting to target IETF 124 (November) for
requirements; thinks we're going to need more time
- M. Wullink: not quite sure about core architecture and other
documents and their timelines. Probably need to work on them
simultaniosly and see if they work together. Gavin: they are
not deadlines fixed in stone. We need to measure progress.
- P. Kowalik: milestones are ambitious but we should keep
them.
- J. Reid: the timeline looks reasonable to me. We should
first deal with the requirements.
- R. Wilhelm: agree with Jim on the requirements. Perhaps a
couple of interim meetings would help.
- M. Wullink: responding to J. Reid re. working on
requirements before architecture: I understand, but don't
want to exclude working on architecture. Thinking about
architecture will help us think and potentially change
requirements.
Time permitting [5 min]
AOB [2 min]
Now wrapping up (on time)... Gavin expresses his thanks to all involved.