To:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Sun, 30 Jun 2002 07:06:10 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Sat, 29 Jun 2002 20:27:09 CDT." <5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084004@STNTEXCH1>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: TCP Mapping
Hong,
You wrote:
> Most (if not all) EPP implementations today use TCP and will stay that way
> for a long time.
I'm don't doubt the correctness of your statement concerning the NeuStar
registry and client. I don't do business with NeuStar, or follow it with
any particular interest, so other than what NeuStar contributors disclose
on this list, concerning its implementation or plan of record, I wouldn't
know (and don't care).
I do know that I'm not the sole implementor who has, or is working on, an
implementation of EPP using a BEEP channel profile. I'm surprised to learn
of NeuStar's long-term de-committment from EPP over BEEP -- this month in
particular.
You wrote:
> ... 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.
Your initial note to this list, and Scott's careful recitation, reflect
that your desire is to modify a transport draft that has no options, and
which itself is not optional in the protocol draft.
Just how is the NeuStar extension supposed to work?
This way?
o client implementations communicating with the NeuStar registry
MUST NOT ignore the P-BIT,
and
o client implementations communicating with another registry
MAY ignore the P-BIT?
Or this way?
o client implementations communicating with any registry
MUST NOT ignore the P-BIT?
You wrote:
> 1. Can EPP PUSH be used for EPP over TCP?
Could you suggest a definition for "EPP PUSH" please? I seem to have missed
it.
Eric