To:
"James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:46:44 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<00c801c0a0bc$497b7f60$4a8dbaca@jamessonyvaio>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: APRICOT'2001
At 20.15 +0800 01-02-27, James Seng/Personal wrote:
>I have done the first discussion of ProvReg at the APRICOT'2001 today.
>Some NICs has expressed their shock this Working Group wish to push thru
>the Protocol, given that there are so many differences in policy,
>management and business models. Even among the Asian NICs, they do not
>have uniformed policy yet.
You have to differ between trying to do things quickly and "pushing"
which for me implies creating a sloppy specification for a sloppy
protocol.
The IETF process should be able to do a proper review on protocols
which are created in a short timeframe, and what the review process
is to look into is whether the protocol is bad or not fulfilling all
requirements (or that the requiurements are not correct).
Just because there is a great interest in this protocol, and so many
people want it, it is _extremely_ important that all people which
have interest let this wg know whether some requirement is not
fulfilled in the protocol, or missing in the requirements document.
It is a fact that different registries (please don't talk about
TLD's) have different policy, have different things you can register
(domains, ip-address blocks and whatever) and the requirements
document have to list all of those requirements. For example that the
policy is not known.
So, my message to those people would be to please participate _now_.
paf
--
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212 (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509
PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843 2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC