RE: State of Provreg

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

I'm curious about the need for a co-chair.  I've seen only two list messages
that touch on the topic: one from Geva in which he suggested the idea, and
one from myself suggesting that if the need is for "balance" we already
appear to be progressing towards a balanced WG.  Is a co-chair needed due to
projected work load or some "behind the scenes" concerns that haven't been
raised on the list?

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Global Registry Services

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Lewis [mailto:lewis@tislabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:04 AM
To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Cc: lewis@tislabs.com
Subject: State of Provreg


Currently "provreg" has not yet become a WG.  We need to have a charter in
place and a second co-chair.

Jaap Akkerhuis, a member of Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland,
has volunteered to be a co-chair.  (In addition to myself.)

Dave Crocker has been preparing the charter.  Dave, I would like to request
a reposting of the charter incorporating recent comments provided.  I ask
the mailing list members to comment on this so it can be submitted to the
IETF.  Solidifying the charter is the most important work item on our list
right now.

As soon as Dave puts the current charter on the list, I'll issue a mailing
list last call.  The last call will be just *one* week.

Once the WG is formalized, we will adopt two drafts to begin ("continue")
discussion.  One is the protocol requirements document and the other is a
proposed protocol specification.  Each of these are edited by Scott
Hollenbeck, and both appear under his name (as we have to WG standing yet).

The current documents, as presented in San Diego are:
     draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-05.txt
     draft-hollenbeck-epp-00.txt

There are other epp-*-00.txt's that will be adopted as needed.

When making comments on the documents, keep in mind:

The charter is our roadmap.  We want to set the scope for the work,
expressing the desired outcome and the schedule.  From what I've gleaned,
our desire is to specifiy a policy-neutral registrar-registry protocol.
The protocol should suitable for any registrar to contact any registry,
regardless of differences in the registries' business models.  *One* reason
for doing this quickly is have the protocol in place so it can be used in
the ICANN-gTLD process.

The requirements document specifies what a candidate protocol must do and
what it should do.  The requirements are not levied on either registry nor
registrar operations.  I.e., the document does not (and can not) require
compliance by parties to use the protocol nor to use it exclusively.

We trust that the protocol, when specified, will be good enough and
desirable enough that registries and their registrars will want to use it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

"It takes years of training to know when to do nothing" - Dogbert

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.