paf,
it is now useful for one or more epp specification and implemention
interested parties to opine, or make a recommendation on the utility
of common syntax and semantics to a class of registry applicants.
i, and possibly one or more other contributors to the joint applicant
support working group (jointness from the generic name supporting
organization and the at large advisory committee, as participating
bylaws entities of the internet corporation for assigned names and
numbers), will be making recommendations that are intended to reduce
new gtld applicant cost and risk, for qualified applicants.
cost includes more than the application fee, and risk includes risk of
entering "continuity", which includes a failure of the registry as a
cost-recovery economic unit, which includes interoperability, as a
cost barrier to its acquisition of sales channels (external registrars),
and therefore the provisioning protocol.
a contribution on the subject, from parties knowledgable about the
current practice of provisioning protocol implementors and users, and
the choices available to specification authors for a given set of
user requirements, something offering more salient guidance than
"tired of all non-interoperable registry inventions in epp", could
be useful.
non-contribution means i co-author the text, which i suspect is sufficient,
but asking is prudent.
more formal requests from the jas-wg to the board and it's ietf liaison,
and on through the magic of delegation, eventually to this very mailing
list, are possible.
-e
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.