Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)

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

At 18:08 +0200 10/19/05, Klaus Malorny wrote:

I have no qualms with anyone implementing their own system, even if 
there is a so-called standard approach out there. 
(Contempt-of-standards is not a crime.)  However, doing this is what 
will kill off the IETF.  The IETF has been, is, and can be a valuable 
resource to the developers of the Internet so long as we fight decay 
of it's function.

>Sorry to say that, but in the beginning of the provreg working group Scott and
>others of the gTLD faction were just too confined to the Verisign model and
>fully ignored the ccTLDs, their needs and their models. IMHO this discouraged
>many ccTLDs from participating. EPP is indeed "extensible", but in 
>some aspects
>just not at all.

No reason to be sorry for that feeling.  But the question is - in 
what way did the discouragement of the ccTLDs become a 
self-fulfilling prophecy?

(One disclaimer - I am going to label camps as ccTLD and gTLD.  Take 
this as a broad brush.  In particular, my current employer is both a 
ccTLD and a gTLD.  The camps aren't so neatly distinct.)

As one of the chairs of the group, I did my best to get wide review. 
(I was hampered by a limited budget for this as my then employer is 
not any kind of a stakeholder in the process.)  Approaching some 
ccTLDs when I could get out, I was told that input was too expensive. 
The only organizations that expended energy were those with a gTLD 
mission.

It wasn't until I got one ccTLD person to speak up about the 
host-less issue that the specification softened on this.  It wasn't a 
matter of getting a voice of a ccTLD to do this, it was a matter of 
trying to figure out what middle ground was available, i.e., how to 
bend the work to suit all comers.  There were rumors floating that 
the host-less approach was in conflict with EPP, but until someone 
clearly said why and was able to sketch a solution, rumors were just 
that.  (Engineers don't deal in rumor.)

When the WG began in 2001, nearly all of the voices were gTLD fed. 
ccTLDs didn't pay much attention as the first blocks of concrete set. 
Over time EPP got wider review which translates into rethinking early 
decisions.  Any feelings of "let's not do this again" by the 
incumbents towards the newcomers is just human nature.  It will 
continue to be this way until the Internet serves the entire planet. 
Such inertia needs to be fought, with even more energy by the newer 
newcomers or else the entire effort will collapse into fragmented 
bickering.

My words aren't about "anyone vs. the Verisign model," although I can 
understand that sentiment.  This is about trying to make the IETF 
work.

What can be done?  If you were to submit a draft that gives 
engineering details of what is wrong with EPP for your case, perhaps 
there is a way to define EPP2 that is even more general.   Then 
again, maybe not - TV has PAL and NTSC formats.  The people that 
"suffer" are those running the clients.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

True story:
Only a routing "expert" would fly London->Minneapolis->Dallas->Minneapolis
to get home from a conference.  (Cities changed to protect his identity.)