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

Scott, all,

> Proposed Charter for EPP Extensions (eppext) Working Group

looks like a good start for develioping the list discussion into a charter.

> 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 IETF has not made the best experience with working on protocols
with explicitly naming ICANN as the primary, let alone single,
stakeholder.  I understand this is a motivator, but the charter
would probably not suffer from an omission of this section.

> 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:

There seems to be a need for some catalog of extensions, but my feeling
is that an IANA registry isn't the right approach.  There's no
identifier space (except that there's already some XML registration
involved) and artificially creating such space just to make IANA eligible
for maintaining such a catalog looks odd to me.

> 1. Develop a Proposed Standard specification for the registration and review of EPP extensions. There is no current Internet Draft that describes this process.

With the above said and just as a nit: an IANA registration policy would
fit into a BCP better than into a PS/standards track document.

> 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.

Work on these could actually progress without (1) done and even without (1) at all.

-Peter (otherwise EPP ignorant)
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg