[enum-wg] Second call for RIPE 51 agenda topics and comments on RIPE 50 minutes

Hi Richard, Carsten, folks,
  In reference to EPP vs. SOAP/HTTP, I note the authorship of RFC3205
- given that, calling it stupid is redundant/stating the obvious.

Seriously, care to expand on what you see as the differences that
make the EPP (client/server) model inappropriate for provisioning?

     I had thought that the goal was for the Telco customer care system
     to act as an EPP client, whilst the core ENUM provisioning/ 
population
     system acted as the EPP server. That seemed to be the model  
behind the
     (delphic) answer when I (and others) asked on the IETF-ENUM list  
for
     clarification on why one would ever want EPP-E164, where would  
it be
     used, and between whom.



On 12 Sep 2005, at 15:36, Richard Shockey wrote:
> I can certainly testify to the intense interest in provisioning  
> issues on this side of the pond.
>
> In particular we're looking at SOAP/XML interfaces to the  
> registry.  The reason for this is that EPP ( which is a fine  
> protocol ) was designed for the highly unique business model of  
> domain name registries and simply will not integrate into the kinds  
> of customer management systems teleco typically deploy.
>
> EPP was designed in the manner it is because the IETF has a really  
> really stupid policy ( RFC 3205 ) on the use of HTTP as a  
> application substrate.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/enum-wg/attachments/20050912/ce377e00/attachment.html>