To:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Cc:
ed.lewis@Neustar.biz
From:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date:
Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:21:02 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07C92D98@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
Just to be set the table, I recognize the desire to make some changes to the specifications. What I am saying is that I don't know that an IETF WG is the way to go. I recognize that many (amorphous) organizations listen to what the IETF says. Unfortunately, "listening" is not the best way to interact with the IETF. "Interacting" is. As long as the IETF is a volunteer organization, the IETF is hard pressed get organizations that listen-only to interact. From this observation, I claim that a WG is not a "sure-fire" answer. What leads to a successful IETF WG? You need a compelling problem that will draw volunteers. You need an identifiable goal with a clear benefit of being reached. Even if the work is clear, such as "getting EPP to Draft Standard" you need to have a real motivation to get it done. If there is no motivation to get it done, then the need for DS becomes a "reason to live" and find other little distractions to study alone they way. (Look at DNSSEC to see what I mean. Yes we want to sign the DNS, along the way we've been tinkering all over the protocol.) Dropping into my opinion now, instead of an IETF WG, I'd like see more interactions in venues attuned to registration activities. Maybe the some venues are broken, maybe some are too new. Perhaps though that something like this (EPP) will be reason to fix venues and to mature others. I don't mean to name names as accusation, but as examples. I've already mentioned CENTR and ICANN. What about APTLD? I believe I once heard of an African ccTLD organizational effort. I don't mean to omit any organization - I don't know of many. I will say that I do see this as bigger than just EPP. Internet registration also includes DNS, IRIS, WhoIs, billing, etc., maybe even the issuance of certificates. Some of what registries "requires" coordination - such as DNS, EPP, IRIS. Some of what registries do can be shared, and some is best left to competitive practices. Within the IETF, the only coordination of these issues is through the informal mutual attendance pattern - there is a lot of overlap in the CRISP (IRIS), DNSEXT, DNSOP, ENUM, etc. groups even though they are in different IETF Areas. For instance, questions about whether EPP ought to get extensions for routing came up in CRISP, and DNSSEC extensions for EPP (RFC 4TBD) was reviewed in DNSOP. Okay, I've strayed far away from the small edits we have been talking about. What you are seeing is about the third attempt at a reply, each time I do from the problems at hand into the crevices I see needing epoxy. To close this off now - we need to keep in mind, what are short term needs and what might we need in the coming years. EPP lives in a context of a few protocols, yet it is its own beast. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.