I second James’ questions here, I am not sure a WG is required
at this point but I’d like to see a proposed charter draft as a first step.
Michael Young
From: James Gould
[mailto:jgould@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:51 PM
To: Edward Lewis; EPP Provreg
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list
Edward,
I would like to know more about which extensions would go up the standards
track and what the goals of the WG would be. We have implemented a set of
custom extensions that might be of interest, but I’m really not sure. It
might be best to work on a charter first to determine if there is adequate work
to form a WG.
--
JG
-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166
Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains
confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended
solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced
or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory
Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and
destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:03:19 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Cc: <ed.lewis@Neustar.biz>
Subject: [ietf-provreg] a question for the list
It's been about 7 years since PROVREG WG closed and about 5 years
since the IETF has taken on a serious amount of registry-related work
(such as CRISP). In that time Scott has shepherded EPP's base
specification to Full Standard. By comparison, DNS's original RFCs
have been elevated to Full Standard without the current process, and
almost no extensions to DNS have progressed even to Draft Standard.
I say that to highlight the extent of Scott's effort and achievement.
Currently we have a draft proposing an update to RFC 4310 (DNSSEC in
EPP), I have been asked about "how to submit" another extension.
There have been a few other extensions published as RFCs.
EPP is also growing in deployments. Early it was the registration
protocol for the ICANN shared registry model but it has been
spreading to other registries that are not subject to ICANN's
overview. With less "evidence" on hand, a few registries have
had to
modify something to get an EPP interface. I suspect that some of the
extensions have not been published as RFCs (which is fine, but, it
would be nice).
Based on this, I wanted to ask the audience of this list if they
thought it would be a good idea to organize a new WG to cover EPP. A
new WG would mean another mail list, as well as the other trappings -
drafts, charter, BoFs, etc.
I can imagine extensions being discussed here, as well as trying to
promote the existing ones to Draft and Full. Also, a document that
discusses what could have been done better in EPP (as maybe a
requirements to EPP 2.0).
So - the question here is - is there interest?
Ultimately, there are other registry-specific things to discuss these
days, discussions that currently have no other appropriate home.
Such as - getting DNSSEC information into a registry in a generalized
environment.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar
You
can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
As with IPv6, the problem with the deployment of frictionless surfaces is
that they're not getting traction.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se