Re: Proposed Charter for EPP Extensions (eppext) Working Group

Scott I'm willing to participate and help write,

Michael Young
On 2013-09-18 7:21 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I recently closed a conversation with Applications Area Director Pete
> Resnick to see what he thought about a narrowly-focused charter for a
> working group to develop a registry for EPP extensions. Pete has agreed
> with the concept in principal. I'm including the text of the proposed
> charter that I shared with Pete and I'd like to ask others to review it and
> share feedback as appropriate.
>
> If we have enough support for a proposed charter Pete is willing to
> entertain a chartering request. If there's more to discuss we can ask about
> scheduling a BOF during the Vancouver meeting.
>
> I've got one specific question: are people able and willing to write a
> draft (or drafts) that describe(s) the registry and registration
> procedures? I don't think this will be a difficult task because cloning an
> existing registry is a perfectly reasonable approach, but someone needs to
> do the work. I'm willing to co-chair (if you all will have me) if we form a
> working group, and thus it would be best if we find other volunteers to
> write documents.
>
> Scott
> ----------
> Proposed Charter for EPP Extensions (eppext) Working Group
>
> The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) was a work product of the IETF
> Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) working group. EPP was published
> as a Proposed Standard (RFCs 3730, 3731, 3732, 3733, and 3734) in March
> 2004. It became a Draft Standard (RFCs 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, and 4934) in
> May 2007, and a Standard (Standard 69; RFCs 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, and
> 5734) in August 2009. It is the standard domain name provisioning protocol
> for generic top-level domain name registries that operate under the
> auspices of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN). It is also used by a number of country code top-level domain
> registries.
>
> Domain name registries implement a variety of business models. The
> difference in these models made it very difficult to come up with a "one
> size fits all" provisioning protocol, so the provreg working group made a
> conscious decision to focus on a minimal set of common functionality. EPP
> was designed to be extensible to allow additional features to be specified
> on an "as needed" basis. Guidelines for extending EPP were published as
> Informational RFC 3735 in March 2004.
>
> The provreg working group was chartered to develop EPP, but not these
> additional extensions. The working group was closed in 2004 after producing
> a number of Proposed Standard specifications. As registries began to
> implement and deploy EPP the need for extensions became real, and the user
> community found itself facing a situation in which multiple extensions were
> being developed by different registries to solve the same basic problems,
> such as registering internationalized domain name variants.
>
> ICANN is now well into a program to delegate a large number of new generic
> top-level domains. EPP will be used to provision those domains, and new
> registry operators are expected to develop additional protocol extensions.
> With no way to coordinate the development of these extensions, the problem
> of non-standard extension duplication is only expected to become worse.
>
> The goal of the EPP Extensions (eppext) working group is to develop an
> IANA registry of EPP extensions and procedures to review specifications for
> inclusion in the registry. It will accomplish this goal in two steps:
>
> 1. Develop a Proposed Standard specification for the registration and
> review of EPP extensions. There is no current Internet Draft that describes
> this process.
>
> 2. Test the extension registration process by developing a small number of
> standards track extensions that currently exist in Internet Draft form,
> including:
>
> draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay (
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/)
>
> draft-obispo-epp-idn (
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-obispo-epp-idn/)
>
> draft-tan-epp-launchphase (
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-epp-launchphase/)
> draft-lozano-tmch-smd (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-smd/)
> draft-tan-epp-launchphase has a normative dependency on
> draft-lozano-tmch-smd.
>
> When these milestones have been completed the working group will consider
> rechartering to explore the issue of ongoing extension development and
> standardization. Modifications to EPP itself are explicitly out of scope
> for this working group.
>
> Milestones:
>
> TBD Extensions registry document to IESG
>
> TBD draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay to IESG
>
> TBD draft-obispo-epp-idn to IESG
>
> TBD draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-lozano-tmch-smd to IESG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> provreg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
>

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