[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PEPPERMINT] Fwd: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00

Cullen,

I think the info you want is actually in some other drafts:

Provisioning Extensions in Peering Registries for Multimedia Interconnection (PEPPERMINT) Problem Statement
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-peppermint-problem-statement-00.txt

and 

E.164 Number Provisioning - Data Set Requirements
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schwartz-peppermint-e164-provisioning-data-set-00.txt


As for EPP being bad, that is a matter of taste.  I do think there is a strong preference toward SOAP by many.  While I'm not wild about it, a SOAP based standard is far better than what we have today.

-andy

On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:



Begin forwarded message:

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>
Date: March 10, 2007 6:51:32 PM EST
Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00


Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I got no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly have no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to support it.

I understand that there are some requirements for provisioning peering services (whatever a peering service provider is). However, this draft does not help me understand what is is the semantic level information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what constraints the trust and administrative boundaries place on the protocol.

I think this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that information well but my suggestion would be to focus on the high level models and requirements then we can figure out design that meets the needs.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list

_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum