RE: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00

["Richard Shockey" <richard at shockey.us>]

Precicely ..plus the data sets for telephone number peering registries are
significantly different from what we anticipated in 4114.

No one is saying EPP is bad only that the vast majority of data provisioning
systems within carriers are based on SOAP transport and not EPP.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck at verisign.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: Cullen Jennings; enum at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy at cisco.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:52 PM
> > To: enum at ietf.org
> > 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.
> 
> That's not the idea that *I* got out of reading the draft.
> 
> What I read: the current EPP ENUM RFC 4114 doesn't solve Ed's
> provisioning problem.  He has worked with a SOAP-based legacy system
> that does the job.  It doesn't make much sense to build an EPP-based
> system when the SOAP-based system is already in place and working.
> That's not the same thing as "SOAP good, EPP bad".
> 
> -Scott-
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> enum at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum


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