RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

At 14:42 -0500 2/13/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Well, I agree with that -- the IESG is saying they want to see some sort of
>"mandatory to implement" functionality.  Should we be trying to convince the
>IESG that the DCP features address their concerns, or do we need to add
>something else?

Funny you should mention the latter.  Here are some snippets of a 
mail exchange I had with a member of the IESG:

>"Section 8.4 of RFC 3375. See the MUST part of [1]"

Paraphrasing the context of that: the IESG feels that the EPP spec 
does not meet this requirement.

I replied:

>But I bet a lot will feel that this passage from the base spec:
>
># "- An OPTIONAL <dcp> (data collection policy) element that contains
>#    child elements used to describe the server's policy for data
>#    collection and management."
>
>shows that we've already met the requirement.

And got this reply:

>Then the exact syntax etc for this DCP element MUST be described and included,
>because another requirement is that the protocol must be able to work without
>human intervention (I think the word used is "automatic").

My response:

>If you want a better definition of the dcp, that can be brought to the group.
>Looking through the base spec, the dcp is discussed, I assume the IESG feels
>that it is not presented well enough.

No further happened on the exchange.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer