To:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
CC:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:59:18 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<a06240803c7836fa44038@[10.31.200.251]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Proposal for new work
Ed, The "I have an extention" bits are fine, but each are a registry's dork on the common case. We also need to fake, or figure out, or get registrars (and I don't simply mean the 100+ actual registrars in the 900+ list of ICANN accredited registrars, but ccTLD registrars too) into the mix, as they have a many-to-many view absent from registries. The last time the world was 6 and 60, and the ccTLDs used a bunch of stuff, and VGRS used RRP. Now the world is 60 and 600 (caveat as above for the bogus shell registrars, and also above for the ccTLD and their registrars now using XML as the syntax and something EPP-esque as the protocol. Last time we could (and did) submarine the thing into the IETF as a small clique of (immanently) prospective and one actual gTLD registry operators, within a very ICANN-market specific set of constraints. This time we should recognized, like escrow, that zone provisioning is not restricted to registries with contracts with ICANN, or which have agreements with ICANN, but is generalized. The registry for a.b.c.d.example could use EPP as could the registrars for a.b.c.d.example. I'm fine with a mid-year BOF, I don't think there is any compelling reason to hurry, as I read the EOI thing as "no delegations till 2013", and we're not as tightly constrained, by VGRS, by ICANN, by our rush for gold and glory (or nominal utility) as we were the last time. Eric -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se