Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

[Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>]

At 16:21 -0400 8/12/05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Taking my cue from your .sig, I have a feeling I don't know what
>you're thinking here (since I think I don't understand this).

The quote was derived from a language teacher's comment about a 
sentence "yes, you have to know what the speaker is thinking to 
understand it."  The .sig came to me as I strolled down a street in 
that country some months later.

However, I think you have gotten what I meant.

>On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 12:07:12PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>>  I think it's clear that there's a demand (as in supply and demand)
>>  for coordination of work involving the EPP protocol.  However, I
>>  don't think there's  justification for an IETF-style working group.
>
>I read that to mean that you think that there are some people who
>think that EPP needs work, but that such work shouldn't go on in an
>IETF wg.  And I agree with you that simple changes to the documents
>don't need a working group.

The idiom "needs work" isn't what I would use.  There are 
enhancements desired to EPP, and extensions for new problem domains. 
However, I have not seen or heard of changes that require a 
re-engineering of the basic protocol.  (Not that there aren't needed 
changes lurking around the corner, but not real to date.)

>But I'm not sure I follow the subsequent arguments that the IETF is
>the wrong place to pursue updates or changes to the protocol.
>
>I appreciate that the IETF doesn't always attract all the registrar
>and registry people we might like for feedback on these issues; but
>that's a problem I'd suggest we solve by soliciting the feedback of
>people in those communities, and _not_ by trying to take our protocol
>developments to some other forum.  I have no direct experience of
>CENTR, but my few experiences with ICANN committees &c. have left me
>with a very strong impression that the technical knowledge does not
>there exist to do good protocol development.  That's no indictment of
>ICANN: they're doing their policy work, and relying on the technical
>community of the Internet to do the technical work.  That community
>works within the IETF, no?

I have a less optimistic view of the IETF process when it comes to 
getting feedback on issues.  When Jaap and I were the co-chairs, most 
of our efforts were to spread the word on EPP.  We were not the kind 
of co-chairs that took a heavy hand in the technical solution, we 
spent more time on process.  Personally I saw my role as "mediating" 
between the reputation EPP garnered as "son of RRP" and "yet another 
tool" of the market dominating player versus the technical benefit it 
provided derived by being initiated by the people with the most 
experience.

It wasn't very easy getting the circle of review to widen.  My 
employer did not have a budget to send my out of the US.  When I did 
have the opportunity, I found that ccTLDs were reluctant to pursue 
EPP for a few reasons, a lot of time because of the resources 
(people) needed.  I recall conversations with "small" ccTLD 
operations that felt they didn't need to look at the documents (not 
enough transaction volume) and that they wouldn't be able to steer 
the IETF anyway.  I saw mail from another ccTLD that was irritated by 
the meddling of "a high ranking IETF official" when trying to get 
them to comment on their proprietary work on the protocol.

I'm making this sound more dire than it is.  The volunteer nature of 
the IETF sometimes is a detriment to the process.  Although I have 
been disappointed with ICANN - it has not met my engineering tastes - 
it is where the money transacted because of EPP resides.  CENTR is an 
organization of registries, a much more concentrated population of 
interest in EPP.  I'm holding up ICANN and CENTR as examples, not as 
solutions, only because they are the ones I am most familiar with in 
this case.

>There does seem to be a live question of whether all the issues
>everyone has identified with EPP can be accommodated without a
>protocol change (including, of course, by instead developing
>extensions).  So far, I'm not totally convinced; but I'd sure like to
>be, which is why I'm pursuing these conversations now.

That's a healthy attitude and approach, and this mailing list is 
probably the best venue for that.  Starting up an IETF WG takes some 
effort anyway, and even if it could be done with out a BoF, the next 
meeting wouldn't be until November.

I'll say that I am reluctant to propose a new WG in anticipation of 
problems.  Only if there is an engineering problem to hammer out 
would I want to create a group.  In a volunteer organization, 
reactionary stances seem the most efficient.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.