RE: [ietf-provreg] References for Today's Host Object Discussion

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

Speaking in a co-chair capacity,

I think that it is fair to reopen the issue.  Jaap and I are aware of 
a significant number of silent speakers that really want to be 
host-object free.

Answering to the charge that these documents sailed through last call 
without comment on this topic (albeit a topic discussed on the list), 
EPP has been generating wider interest as it progresses.

There's always the trade-off of delay and feature adding, and mission 
creep versus focus.  There is no clear rule that applies to each 
situation, so the question:

    Should EPP define a host-object-less model now?

is one that can't be answered categorically (the "now" thing).  But I 
think that it seems worthwhile to do so now - while we are also 
preparing to answer the privacy issue.

Unless I am missing something, Scott, can you propose some text that 
would accommodate nameservers-as-attributes?  Based on:

>- Allowing a choice between name server host objects and name server domain
>attributes.
>    http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2001-12/msg00024.html

Joe offered to help..."I would be happy to contribute text if this 
sounds like a reasonable approach."

At 18:01 -0500 3/24/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>I'm not one of the people responsible for determining consensus, but I can
>say that the domain document has completed both WG and IETF last calls with
>the currently specified feature set.  Our chairs can, of course, direct me
>to change something if WG consensus is to make a change.  I'd prefer to keep
>things as-is, though, because this is _not_ a new argument and we'll have a
>chance to address this again when considering what to do when going from
>proposed to draft.
>
>One of the things I intend to do once we're there is capture the outstanding
>issues in an I-D that can be used to seed the proposed-to-draft discussion.
>It would be helpful if people who have issues with any current features
>could send me a note (off-list is OK) describing what they don't like _and_
>a suggested solution.  We might then have the start of a pretty good problem
>statement for EPP 1.1 or 2.0.
>
>-Scott-

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

I've had it with world domination.  The maintenance fees are too high.