Re: Agenda?

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

> Maybe we ought to spend some time discussing "next steps"?  Should we
> declare victory and go home assuming the last call docs advance, or are

works for me. we know we're not going to get consensus on:

	o transport other than conection-oriented, synchronous,
	o event/state model other than client-server,
	o abstractions or groupings of operations,
	o national requirements,
	o other

> there other things to do with interop testing,

not strictly required, as a process issue. the existing installed base
appears to have exhausted this requirement, not to mention themselves.

>                                                docs for the address
> registries etc?

upon mature reflection, i think i erred in thinking that this wg could
meet the RIR and dependent needs. there's a lot of generic tld industry
explicit and implicit conditions in what we've managed to accomplish,
reflecting the material interests of the core contributors.

recently in another venue i've been confronted by the assumption that
this wg would be the natural place for key word provisioning to go. for
some values of "key word systems", the material conditions (r-star roles,
costs, etc.) are similar to (replicate or incorporate) the icann domain
name registration industry, but not the national domain name registries.

in theory, yeah, its just state with a aaa model ... this wg could make
a thing as generally useful as nfs or beep or ldap, but ...

in practice oil and water. gtlds and cctlds do not mix. tlds and slds do
not mix. domains and addresses do not mix. domains and keywords probably
should not mix (to their mutual benefit, not to mention the iesg).

i suggest we return all non-LC'd drafts to their authors as individual
submissions, wind down, and let the r-star players go their merry ways.

declare victory, go home, works for me.
eric