To:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Paul George" <pgeorge@saraf.com>
Date:
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:59:28 -0500
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<062e01c08d5a$1e843dd0$84411004@jamessonyvaio>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)
Okay, so why are there differences? Are they looking at an older version? Is there a problem with giving them the new version? Please forgive my ignorance, I thought this one was the version they were considering..... Paul George SARAF Software Solutions -----Original Message----- From: James Seng/Personal [mailto:James@Seng.cc] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 3:53 PM To: Paul George; ietf-provreg@cafax.se Subject: Re: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) Not in the charter published by the IESG. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul George" <pgeorge@saraf.com> To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 4:38 AM Subject: RE: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) > James, I don't understand. The charter states: > > > "Subsequent versions of the specification will > extend the protocol to exchange other > information needed to organize the Internet, > such as IP address allocations." > > > I think we are merely *starting* with DNS because of the time constraints of > the new TLDs, but the protocol can clearly be extended at a later time to > include all kinds of registration environments. I don't see the problem. > (?) > > Paul George > SARAF Software Solutions > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se]On > Behalf Of James Seng/Personal > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:42 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Cc: Patrik Faltstrom > Subject: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) > > > I would like to object this proposed charter for provreg. Its scope has > been so specific defined for DNS only and has no mention of anything > beyond DNS. > > I propose shortening the charter and balancing it slightly. If it is out > of line, feel free to shoot it. > > --- > Registration of Domain Names Service (DNS) involves various objects > transfer from multiple Registrars to a back-end Registry database. > Conversely, there is a desire to standardized the process allowing > multiple Registrars to access multiple Registries database which may > differ in operational models. Such registration procotcol has many > benefits which may tranverse beyond domain names objects. > > This working group will investigate the requirements for a registration > protocol of objects between two or more entities and to developed such a > provision protocol that satisfied these requirements. > > The group will consider support for multiple operational choices, such > as for transport and security; it will create no new transport or > security protocols. The group may consider use of the new protocol for > diverse registration and update scenarios, in order to understand > limitations and possible extensions that are appropriate. Specification > for user interface access, such as by a web front end, is beyond the > scope of this working group. > > The Action Item(s) for the Working Group are > > 1. An Informational RFC specifying the requirements of the Provision > Registration protocol. > > 2. An Informational RFC specifying the objects exchange during the > registration process for the Domain Name; at a minimum includes: > domain names, IP address and contact details for registrant. > > 3. A Standard RFC specifying the Provision Registration Protocol. > This document should have specification for domain names > object registration but also include extension capability for > non-domain names objects. > > Goals and Milestones: > > .... > > -James Seng > > --- Original Message --- > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. > The IESG has not made any determination as yet. > > The following Description was submitted, and is provided for > informational purposes only: > > Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) > ---------------------------------------- > > Current Status: Proposed Working Group > > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion:ietf-provreg@cafax.se > To Subscribe: ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se > In Body: subscribe ietf-provreg > Archive: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/ > > Description of Working Group: > > Administration of Domain Name Service (DNS) registration increasingly > distinguishes between the operation of a "back-end" registry data base > service for registrations, versus "front-end" support services by > registrars who interact with registrants and with the registry. > Especially for various Top-Level Domains, the desire is to permit > multiple registrars to share access to the database. Conversely, there > is a desire to allow a registrar to access multiple registries via the > same protocol, even if the registries differ in operational models. > > This working group will develop a specification of the requirements and > limitations for a protocol that enables a registrar to access multiple > registries and will develop a protocol that satisfies those > requirements. The protocol will permit interaction between a > registrar's own application and registry applications. > > The initial specification will allow multiple registrars to register > and maintain domain names within multiple Top Level Domains (TLDs). The > specification should be flexible enough to support the different > operational models of registries. The specification should allow > extension to support other registration data, such as address > allocation and contact information. The working group will use as input > the "Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements" > (draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-nn) and the Extensible Provisioning > Protocol presentation, documented in (draft-hollenbeck-epp-nn). > > The group will consider support for multiple operational choices, such > as for transport and security; it will create no new transport or > security protocols. The group may consider use of the new protocol for > diverse registration and update scenarios, in order to understand > limitations and possible extensions that are appropriate. Specification > for user interface access, such as by a web front end, is beyond the > scope of this working group. > > Documentation from the working group will: > > * Specify the objects exchanged between the registry repository > and registrars, the relationships among the objects, and the protocol > for exchanging objects between a registrar and the registry; at a > minimum the objects will include: domain name, IP address, and contact > details for registrants > > * Describe appropriate mechanisms for security during registrar access > > * List useful examples of registrar access transactions > >