Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Last Call: draft-gould-rfc4310bis (Domain Name System(DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the ExtensibleProvisioningProtocol

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

OK. So we need to:

(a) remind the lawyers who clutter up the Registry Stakeholder Group 
(RySG) that they need to know to tell the technical people (who should 
form the registry operator sharpened stakes and pitchforks group) that 
technical work (on EPP) takes place on ietf-provreg, please bring your 
extensions and other brain-damage or stay home,

(b) remind the lawyers who clutter up the Registrar Stakeholder Group 
(RSG) that technical work (on EPP) takes place on ietf-provreg, and if 
they intend to sell anything other than VGRS inventory, or stay afloat 
in a sea of registry-specific extensions and other brain-damage, its 
come or stay home,

(c) inform the civil administrators who clutter up the CNSO similar to 
(a), above, rinse and repeat for the sharpened stakes and pitchforks 
group, unencumbered by the "contract" problem,

and

(d) inform the ccTLD tech people who attend occasionally, or 
regularly, the Monday ccTLD Tech Day at ICANN meetings that technical 
work (on EPP) takes place on ietf-provreg, again, rinse and repeat for 
the sharpened stakes and pitchforks group.

That covers the ICANN g&c space. Informing the CNNIC c&g's would be 
useful as it is a bother that .cn-ascii and .cn-idn are at different 
pre-1.0 revs. It is their choice, but spec-sync could benefit them as 
well as everyone else benefited by spec-sync.

Are there other registrars, and other registries, which use, or plan 
to use, EPP? Possibly. This gets more real when we look at another XML 
syntax specified data transport issue, the escrow, as escrow is a 
general interest to zone operators, not merely TLD zone operators.

The reason for techies to have "sharpened stakes and pitchforks" is 
that the really important technical and operational issues do not fall 
into the mutually exclusive "have a contract or have a MoU (or less) 
with ICANN" baskets, and specification and/or implementation drift 
caused by differences in legal regimes has no technical necessity 
justification.

Eric

On 2/1/10 7:52 AM, Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk wrote:
>
>  > All individual submission work that happened after the group closed was
>  > done in complete accordance with IETF procedures, with appropriate
>  > public announcements, using the agreed-upon mailing list. Responsible
>  > "stakeholders" have a responsibility to stay involved, Bernie.
>
> New stakeholders also have to find out how to _get_ involved.
>
> As a relative newbie to the IETF world (and only being employed in the
> registry business since late 2007) I only found out about this group by
> accident when I spotted the earlier EPPbis documents in the "new drafts"
> RSS feed.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Ray
>
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se