RE: security in draft-ietf-provreg-epp-0.txt

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

I don't think I'm confused this time ;-), but perhaps my response didn't
help eliminate anyone else's confusion.  I agree that we need a BEEP
operational profile (I'd go so far as to say that we really need more than
one such profile), but I believe that such profiles should be specified in
documents separate from the base protocol specification.  Sorry if I didn't
make that clear in my earlier response.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Sent: 3/20/01 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: security in draft-ietf-provreg-epp-0.txt

At 07:13 AM 3/20/2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Requiring BEEP contradicts other requirements for transport
independence.

I suspect there is some confusion between:

         a technical characteristic -- ability to map the application 
protocol to run over multiple transports, versus

         an operational profile -- specification of a complete set of 
features to be used for basic interoperability, including transport and 
security mechanisms.

The former is good for extensibility.  The latter is essential for
initial use.