Re: Proposal for new work

Hi Ed et al.

In the times I was still working with Switch I made a study about 
different implementation variants of the Transfer command. The conclusion 
was that almost every Registry had implemented the Tranfer in a different 
way.

This study might help to englighten some of the shortcomings of EPP.
Unfortunately I only found a Draft Version of that study made in 2006:

   http://ucom.ch/presentations/EPP_Transfer_Variants_20060920.pdf

[Please note, that the information in that document is most likely 
outdated (2006). As it is a draft version, it also contains inaccuracies.]

At some CENTR Tech meeting I presented the results of that study.
If you have a CENTR login, you can find those slides at:

  https://www.centr.org/main/lib/g1/3278-CTR.html

Hope this helps to better understand the problem space.

Have fun!

cheers,
  Bernie

---

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization



On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:

> Two weeks ago I floated an idea for an effort to look at updating EPP in a 
> new IETF WG.  Last week I was occupied with other things including trying to 
> prepare "IRE" for a BoF application.
>
> I think the following areas have promising work items:
>
> 1. Moving EPP-related RFCs along the standards track.
>
> I looked back at the published RFCs documenting extensions to EPP and found 
> these:
>
> 5706 - ENUM Validation Information
> 4310 - DNSSEC
> 4114 - E.164 Number Mapping
> 3915 - Domain Registry Grace Period
>
> All of these are sitting at proposed standard.
>
> 2. Documenting more of the extensions on the standards track.
>
> I have heard of (but haven't been able to compile a list of) extensions done 
> by registries that have not been documented in RFCs. This is not criminal 
> (;)) but one of the desires voiced within PROVREG WG (in the early days) was 
> to have a "unified" registration protocol.
>
> One beneficiary of this are the commercial registrars who can then work with 
> more registries to "sell" more names, with the benefit to registries too. 
> Said just for example.
>
> 3. Review of DNSSEC extensions.
>
> This item may not wait for WG formation, but if it is still hanging around it 
> would be a "good one."  (BoF application deadline is in about 12 hours, so 
> it's tight to try to organize this in a day.)
>
> 4. A discussion of the shortcomings of EPP for new registry environments.
>
> This is more or less a EPPbis requirements document, if one at all. Between 
> this and the next item, the work isn't necessarily EPP but registration 
> improvements in general.
>
> Back to this, I am including this based on comments I heard in the CENTR Tech 
> meetings, as well as some registries opting not to use EPP - or using EPP 
> "under duress."  I'm not saying anything is the matter - it would be good to 
> give these discussions a place to be held.
>
> 5. How do we get DNSSEC information (DS RR; DNSKEY RR) into a registry in a 
> generalized environment?  EPP has RFC 4310 and the 4310bis draft, but what 
> about situations in which EPP is not the conduit?  Such as non-registrar DNS 
> operators and registries that do not have registrars in the architecture?
>
> I'd appreciate commentary on this list of work items.  Perhaps the next step 
> is to set up a mail list for this and target having a BoF at the summer IETF 
> (in SE Holland - some town whose name I can't spell "M-something" without 
> looking at a map).
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 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 [email protected]
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email protected]