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

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

...
>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").

There's a schema.

...
> No further happened on the exchange.

I thought they were going down a substantive path, such as changing
the <dcp> implementation requirement from optional to manditory, or
a manditory pervasive (or scoped) leaf attribute, or ... or just
buggering off until they had something technical to contribute.

Aside #1.
Wearing my I'm-a-registrar-and-I'm-OK hat, I posted a note to to the
registrars constituency mailing list on our present quandry. Nothing
yet from the gTLD registrar business|requirements parties, so all of
this may be a non-issue. The RC will be meeting at the end of this
week, if enough Swiss dogs can be found to get us through the snows
of Washington and policy requirements for operation in the EU is on
the agenda.

Aside #2.
The geo-blah WG's docs (spam has local context, aluminum-hats and its
converse, advertizing, still have mind-share) focus on the preferences
of data originators, and not on the policies of data collectors. The
addition of a half-room of a mixed bag of groan-bots and greed-bots,
who are originator-aware (trans: registrant-aware), transport-unaware
(trans: reseller/registrar/registry-unaware), won't improve the work
attempted at the face-to-face.

What happened to our WG-only interim via-voca? If it fell victim to
duct-tape madness in the Beltway, it is time to give it oxygen.

Eric