[Ietf-not43] Using EPP for Crisp?

[Patrick]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:00:07PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer took time to write:
> Since the recent DNSO report from the whois task force mentions using
> 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...

> 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? 

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
> should merge provreg and crisp ? :-)

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.