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

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Ed,

Responding to several of your issues raised over the weekend:

> The charter mentions DNS administration to set the context of the work, it
> itself is not a work item.

This is what I assumed.

> The reason I removed the mention of the draft is that we are not here to
> bless a particular protocol generated outside the working group, but rather
> to generate a protocol in full view of the IETF.

I see two issues here -- agency and process.

Agency -- The draft charter shows two co-chairs, Ed and Jaap. Was this
change of draft charter discussed by both? The draft charter was discussed
at San Diego and references to Scott's prior drafts were present then, and
not remarkable. What changed?

Process -- This has been covered by others, unlike another activity for
which a NDA existed, Scott's drafts have been in full public view.

> Right now I am basically waiting for feedback from the IESG.

The scope of IESG review is limited, as is its effect. I'll crawl out on a
limb and _predict_ the IESG reviewer(s) won't:
	a) require folding whois and provreg (despite the superficial
	   appearence of common underlying data and access mechanisms),
	b) require an ab initio folding of DNS provreg with other possible
	   provregs, (despite the superficial appearence of common underlying
	   data types and access mechanisms), and
	c) require cosmetic rewriting of self-evident existing requirements.

Cheers,
Eric