Re: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 09:35 AM 2/3/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
>Dave,
>
> > At 08:41 PM 2/2/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > feature, not bug.
>
>It depends who you speaking to...To me, it is a bug.

My statement is based on experience with IETF processes, observation of 
other standards processes and experience with product development.  It 
seems to be one of the empirical truths about project success, especially 
when an open group process is involved.

Start with the simplest, most specific deliverable that will be 
useful.  Then evolve.


>However, I can not understand is what is the hurry for the WG to get
>this out quickly?

That has been discussed before.  Existing and new registries and registrars 
want this NOW.


>If it is about new gTLD registry, any of the new gTLD registry who have
>not started work implementing their system now is crazy. I dont think
>any of them will wait for the result of the WG (Sept?) before starting
>work. For this, we are already too late.

For their initial use, yes.  But some of them have already spoken, here, to 
validate the urgency of their need.


>Either way, IMHO, we are already too late in a non-standardised world.

James, unfortunately that is one of the usual argument for taking forever.

>Hence, it is better to work on a GOOD and long term technical solution

Again, that is unfortunately a frequently-heard comment in standards arenas 
that is obviously well-intentioned, but turns out to be 
counter-productive.  It is one of the ironies of this sort of standards work.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464