To:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:03:53 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To:
<a06240803c7836fa44038@[10.31.200.251]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] Proposal for new work
Hi Ed et al. In the times I was still working with Switch I made a study about different implementation variants of the Transfer command. The conclusion was that almost every Registry had implemented the Tranfer in a different way. This study might help to englighten some of the shortcomings of EPP. Unfortunately I only found a Draft Version of that study made in 2006: http://ucom.ch/presentations/EPP_Transfer_Variants_20060920.pdf [Please note, that the information in that document is most likely outdated (2006). As it is a draft version, it also contains inaccuracies.] At some CENTR Tech meeting I presented the results of that study. If you have a CENTR login, you can find those slides at: https://www.centr.org/main/lib/g1/3278-CTR.html Hope this helps to better understand the problem space. Have fun! cheers, Bernie --- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Edward Lewis wrote: > 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 > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se