RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

Ed, all,
As much as CENTR [or other groups - CDNC comes to mind] is a model for
interested registries to talk EPP implementation details, IETF is likely the
right place for the protocol elements to get moved forward, in an open
"come-right-in" manner. (I expect you already agree with this, I'm simply
saying it explicitly).

> 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.

If you read draft-sullivan-epp-experience, there are at least a few areas
that need engineers to come together to talk protocol and discuss how to
move things forward to the core protocol.

Scott (Hollenbeck), for instance, in some cases advocates the exclusive use
of extensions for modified or new functionality, and in other cases (RGP)
has helped write it into the protocol.

My goal is to not have the EPP documents become the "epitome of perfection",
but one goal would/could/should be to ensure that diversity of
implementations in EPP via extensions for the exact same functionality,
aimed at the exact same community, and used by the exact same participants
not become the lazy alternative to active discussion on which elements
should become part of the core protocol.

> The IETF isn't the right venue to attract interest of registries.
> There was a time in which EPP development needed the input of other
> protocol engineering experts.

IETF wg output (and in some cases, even ID track) gets read and digested -
as you know, there a lot of lurkers and only a few active speakers.  Folks I
speak with at many ccTLDs find the IETF work to be both clueful and
participatory, if they choose to.

> I'm sure another run of the PROVREG WG would gather a different and
> probably more well-rounded set of participants than the first try.
> But still, there is no guarantee that we get who we need.

There never is a guarantee, but it seems to me that we have a confluence of
demand (not just market demand, but actual engineering ones), interest from
participants, and practical knowledge waiting to be applied appropriately.

-Ram