Re: Domain check in draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt

I see a combination of both the informal interaction of this list as well
as formal interaction of a WG.  As I stated before, EPP was built for
extensibility and extensibility itself is not evil. EPP's extensibility is
a feature but best practices should be followed (e.g. make them opt-in
extensions) when creating them and it makes sense to move some of the
custom extensions up the standards track to create consistency.  There is
a lot of work involved with going up the standards track for an extension
so it really needs to be warranted.  I believe with the launch of a large
set of new TLD's it makes sense to at a minimum have a BoF to discuss the
custom extensions to see if a set of common / standard extensions can be
identified.  Also with the work being done on the launch phase policies
and approaches being worked out at ICANN it makes sense to consider a
parallel IETF WG to define the protocols.  There is the launchphase
extension drafted by Will Tan and Gavin Brown that is a good starting
point for interaction between the Domain Registrar and the Domain
Registry, but what about the protocol with the Trademark Clearinghouse
(TMCH) that can include the provisioning of trademarks (e.g. Trademark
Registrar), the query interface and the notification interface between the
Domain Registry and the TMCH, and there might be an interface required for
the Domain Registrar.  I also have the idea of creating a Domain Registry
EPP Mapping that at a minimum would include support for an info command
and response for providing the features and policies for a TLD or set of
TLD's. This would provide information to the Registrars that could help
automate and subsequently scale the number of TLD's.


-- 


JG



James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email protected]

703-948-3271
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

VerisignInc.com



On 1/6/12 7:17 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 05:28:10PM -0500, Michael Young wrote:
>
>> are independent. However it would be in everyone's interest to reduce
>>work,
>> effort and confusion by forming standards.
>
>[. . .]
> 
>> So then, how do we organize to try and make some progress here?  Does
>> everyone think we should try and organize in the first place?
>
>This list is already almost as organized as it gets at the IETF, and
>I'd suggest that much more organization would hinder, rather than help
>the effort.
>
>"More organized" than this at the IETF usually means a working group.
>I am not at all convinced that the structure of a WG will help,
>because in many cases a WG would just add overhead.  I'm not even sure
>one could get chartered, because a BoF might not attract enough
>interest to get the sort of meaningful review that would be required.
>
>Moreover, the simple fact is that there are no protocol cops on the
>Internet.  I suppose that ICANN could require (of gTLD registries)
>some specific RFCs be the mechanism by which this or that feature be
>offered in EPP.  But that doesn't require additional organization
>within the IETF.  It requires greater participation and support on the
>part of registries and registrars.  Registries have had almost 10
>years of extensions in which they could have co-ordinated with one
>another, but they didn't.  If they want to start, brilliant; but that
>requires no more structure than we have now, because ultimately it's
>just a matter of coming to agreement about how some extension will
>work.  
>
>I guess one thing that perhaps could be a good idea is to promote this
>mailing list to people outside the circle of those who originally
>participated in or monitored EPP development.  I suspect that there
>are people around ICANN, for instance, who either would have an
>opinion about EPP extensions or who employ someone wo does, but who
>don't know about this list and don't follow it.  Getting them involved
>would be a good idea.
>
>Best,
>
>A
>
>-- 
>Andrew Sullivan
>[email protected]
>_______________________________________________
>provreg mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg