To:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, Chris.Newman@Sun.COM, lisa@osafoundation.org, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, iesg@ietf.org
From:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date:
Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:03:57 +0100
In-reply-to:
Your message of Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:09:09 -0500. <a06240800c5701543655d@[0.0.0.0]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
Hi Scott,
I admire your patience over advancing this.
Yes, this worth some compliments.
When I talk to other registry operators, EPP is nearly always
mentioned. Operators have been and still are converting to it.
I don't think the RIRs have but just about all TLD operators I
have come across use it.
Registry operators tend not to document this nor issue reports
measuring this. Other tasks take precedence.
Yes, and it is too bad that they don't. There is an opportunity to
learn from ech other experience here. And since the registry operators
do have to document and explain these to their registrars anyway,
the extra effort shouldn't be that much, at least, that's what I
think.
Regarding the options - I've never run into any issue with the
original spec, I doubt that we have updated anything for quite
a while. (We did add DNSSEC extensions and some others, but
nothing touching the base.) So I don't have a real opinion on
the needed changes. (As in I don't think/know of anything [is]
needed.)
I'm pretty neutral to the options as well. I always thought that
during advancing a document removing (unused) material was not a
real problem but changing and or adding material, other then updating
references, is close to a no-no, so I would go for the easier one
(1 or 2) to keep the processes going. But there are likely people
way better versed in IETF process to see what the risk there is for
advancing these RFCs.
jaap