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

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Dave,

You know, it is very difficult to disagree with you :-)

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; "Patrik Faltstrom" <paf@cisco.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)


> 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
>