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

["Paul George" <pgeorge@saraf.com>]

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

I agree with Dave.  There is a need to get this nailed down quickly, and not
just from the Registries and Registrars point of view.  What about all those
poor product development teams trying to create a product that implements
this protocol?  It's like shooting at a target that is over the horizon (you
can do it, but it's real hard).

Paul George
SARAF Software Solutions
(703)538-5666 x234


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se]On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:00 PM
To: James Seng/Personal
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; Patrik Faltstrom
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