Re: [ietf-provreg] our meeting slot in SF

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
> > And, I think what we want to discuss in this work group is not the
actual
> > "mapping tables", but the framework for doing provisioning.
>
> What part is "interoperable", and subject to specification, assuming that
> a requirements statement exists, or can be frobbed up in finite time?

The framework of the provisioning should be interoperable and subject to
specification.  For example, on domain create, the response should contain a
list of "reserved variants".  The annoucement of the list and the types of
reserved variants could be specified.  The actual list would be based on the
registry policy.

> > It has more to do with how the management of reserved variants and zone
> > variants can be provisioned.
>
> This doesn't seem to be a likely candidate for "interoperable", etc.

The policy itself would not be of the interest of this discussion.  Rather
the provisioning protocol should be.  For further example, on query for
domain info there should be additional list that contains the reserved
variants and zone variants.  Also for domain update, there should be ways to
manage the reserved variants and zone variants.  These could all be
standardized even if the particular zone policies are different.  Just like
some TLDs might consider fax number to be "required" and some "optional",
but the provisioning protocol supports the communication of fax numbers.

Edmon