To:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084004@STNTEXCH1>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: TCP Mapping
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Liu, Hong wrote: > Rick, > > Most (if not all) EPP implementations today use TCP and will stay that way > for a long time. ok, we disagree. > For this matter, we want to make PUSH work using TCP. It is > not a requirement, it is an extension with which we can use PUSH for EPP > over TCP. why, whats the use case, and why is it worth altering each and every transport to enable push. we all agreeded along time ago that push work better in beep. It would help us all if you gave us some reasoning behind your wishes. > I don't think EPP PUSH should be exclusively tied to BEEP. BEEP makes EPP > PUSH easier, and that is it. nor do I, however beep supports a push model where as our EPP over TCP doesn't. > I am not sure about smtp since I have not seen the draft yet... > > Two questions need to be addressed separately in the discussion: > 1. Can EPP PUSH be used for EPP over TCP? we have learned we shouldn't be altering the EPP over TCP transport to make it work. > 2. How to do the EPP PUSH extension properly for EPP over TCP (or over any > transport)? over any transport is the preferable objective. -rick