Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates

[Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl>]

Ram, all,

    If you read draft-sullivan-epp-experience, there are at least a few areas
    that need engineers to come together to talk protocol and discuss how to
    move things forward to the core protocol.

I note that this ID seems to concentrate on issues for gTLD type
registries. As en example, the problems signalled over Domain
Registry Grace Period. What I would like to see is a similar document
decsribing more ccTLD centered issues.

    IETF wg output (and in some cases, even ID track) gets read and
    digested - as you know, there a lot of lurkers and only a few
    active speakers.  Folks I speak with at many ccTLDs find the
    IETF work to be both clueful and participatory, if they choose
    to.

Experience learns that these "lurking ccTLD's" go of and do there
own version grumbling that the IETF doesn't really (want to)
understand their need. It would really be much more benificial when
this grumbling would take place during the protocol development and
not during or after last call. You really want most (all) players
on board and be participating.

An other problem, is that there is some work involved setting up
an IETF-WG. There should at least be a BOF which a provisional
charter etc. I think one wants prevent having WG "to discuss
operational issues" which might linger on forever.

When the WG was closed Ed remarked:

	I'd like to thank those involved for helping achieve what
	we set out to do.  I hope that the effort pushes on to Draft
	Standard without the formalization of a new WG.

And yes, getting from Proposed to Draft is another thing that needs
some sonsideration.

	jaap