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

volunteer to write and review

Regards,
Linlin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Hollenbeck, Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 7:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [provreg] Proposed Charter for EPP Extensions (eppext) Working
Group
> 
> 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