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

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

(Left off the ietf general list)

At 7:24 -0500 2/1/10, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>Even when provreg was a working group the same mailing list, hosted in
>the same place, was used for group discussion.  An explicit decision was
>made to keep the list open for ongoing discussion after the working
>group was closed.  Nothing has changed in terms of the agreed-upon place
>for ongoing work discussion.
>
>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.  I know I
>can't have done any more to let people know what's been going on.

Having once been one of the co-chairs of Provreg I want to try to 
explain the situation.  Both Bernie and Scott are right, but that 
doesn't mean there isn't a gap.

What happened is that the PROVREG WG operated during a time when the 
domain name registration function, as well as all other registration 
functions, were understood by just a small community and within a 
constrained framework.  The WG achieved its goal, in 2003 or so 
stopped meeting (it was closed officially once the RFCs were 
published, months later).  The mailing list has remained open since 
then, with little or no publicity beyond those active on it.  I 
wouldn't expect that a responsible party would even know of the list 
if they hadn't been there to participate in the WG.

Since the closing of the WG the documents defining EPP have been 
advanced to Full Standard using the mailing list as the basis for 
communication.  While this meets with IETF processes standards, the 
registration industry/community grew both in population[0] and in 
scope[1] at the same time and this did not feed into the IETF 
process.  Members of this growth had no formal way to know of the 
mailing list as it had no WG to "cover" it, had no chairs or 
advocates to promote it in appropriate venues (like CENTR Tech).

>I know I can't have done any more to let people know what's been going on.

And that's certainly true, but that doesn't mean the message got out 
far enough.

In the past few weeks, recognizing this and a backlog of technical 
issues[2] facing registries, registrars, and all others involved in 
Internet Registration, there has been discussion on the mailing list 
to apply for a new WG (well, first a BoF, etc.).  From the messages 
posted, it appears that an effort to apply for a BoF will proceed, 
hopefully in time for IETF 78 "Maastricht" (as the deadline for IETF 
77 "Disneyland" has passed).

[0] Back then there were 3 or 4 registries and a few registrars; 
according to a stat uttered at .ORG's Public Forum last week, there 
are 14 "major" registry operators now, hundreds of registrars just 
within the ICANN definition, and many other entities involved in 
domain name registration.

[1] The role of registries are better understood today, more 
realization of the differences and similarities of domain name 
registration and RIR's for example.  While RIR's did not actively 
participate in the PROVREG WG, then did participate in CRISP, as one 
sign of growing awareness.

[2] Such as submission of DNSSEC keys (SEP/KSK) into registries not 
using EPP's DNSSEC extension (4310) now defined at PS; and how 
non-EPP client DNS operators send the keys.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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