[ietf-provreg] Proposal for new work

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

Two weeks ago I floated an idea for an effort to look at updating EPP 
in a new IETF WG.  Last week I was occupied with other things 
including trying to prepare "IRE" for a BoF application.

I think the following areas have promising work items:

1. Moving EPP-related RFCs along the standards track.

I looked back at the published RFCs documenting extensions to EPP and 
found these:

5706 - ENUM Validation Information
4310 - DNSSEC
4114 - E.164 Number Mapping
3915 - Domain Registry Grace Period

All of these are sitting at proposed standard.

2. Documenting more of the extensions on the standards track.

I have heard of (but haven't been able to compile a list of) 
extensions done by registries that have not been documented in RFCs. 
This is not criminal (;)) but one of the desires voiced within 
PROVREG WG (in the early days) was to have a "unified" registration 
protocol.

One beneficiary of this are the commercial registrars who can then 
work with more registries to "sell" more names, with the benefit to 
registries too.  Said just for example.

3. Review of DNSSEC extensions.

This item may not wait for WG formation, but if it is still hanging 
around it would be a "good one."  (BoF application deadline is in 
about 12 hours, so it's tight to try to organize this in a day.)

4. A discussion of the shortcomings of EPP for new registry environments.

This is more or less a EPPbis requirements document, if one at all. 
Between this and the next item, the work isn't necessarily EPP but 
registration improvements in general.

Back to this, I am including this based on comments I heard in the 
CENTR Tech meetings, as well as some registries opting not to use EPP 
- or using EPP "under duress."  I'm not saying anything is the matter 
- it would be good to give these discussions a place to be held.

5. How do we get DNSSEC information (DS RR; DNSKEY RR) into a 
registry in a generalized environment?  EPP has RFC 4310 and the 
4310bis draft, but what about situations in which EPP is not the 
conduit?  Such as non-registrar DNS operators and registries that do 
not have registrars in the architecture?

I'd appreciate commentary on this list of work items.  Perhaps the 
next step is to set up a mail list for this and target having a BoF 
at the summer IETF (in SE Holland - some town whose name I can't 
spell "M-something" without looking at a map).
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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