Re: FW: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)

+1

Looks like a great plan! Glad to see this moving forward!

[ Something I was proposing already 7:ish years ago, though with far less 
traction than now...the proposal appears to have matured a lot over 
time... ]

Thanks Scott et al. for taking care of this!

All the best,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Technology


On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> Yay!
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:18 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: eppext WG
> Subject: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
>
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. The
> IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
> submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
> your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-12-02.
>
> Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
> ------------------------------------------------
> Current Status: Proposed WG
>
> Assigned Area Director:
>  Pete Resnick <[email protected]>
>
> Charter:
>
> 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 additional contact information.
>
> EPP is widely implemented by generic top-level domain name registry
> operators. It is also used by multiple country-code top-level domain name
> registry operators. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN) has an active 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 by multiple
> operators is only expected to become worse.
>
> The goal of the EPP Extensions (eppext) working group is to create an
> IANA registry of EPP extensions and to review specifications of
> extensions for inclusion in the registry. It will accomplish this goal in
> two steps:
>
> 1. Develop a specification for a registry of and corresponding
> registration procedures for EPP extensions. One proposal is documented in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-epp-ext-reg/.
>
> 2. Produce a small number of extensions based on existing Internet Draft
> documents and use the IANA registration process as developed in 1 to
> register those extensions, as follows:
>
> DNSSEC key relay: draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/)
>
> Internationalized domain names: draft-obispo-epp-idn
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-obispo-epp-idn/)
>
> New TLD launch phases: draft-tan-epp-launchphase
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-epp-launchphase/)
>
> Trademark Clearinghouse: draft-lozano-tmch-smd
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-smd/)
>
> Note: draft-tan-epp-launchphase has a normative dependency on
> draft-lozano-tmch-smd.
>
> Only the development of the registration process and the
> publication/registration of the four extensions noted above are in scope
> for the working group. The working group can choose not to publish or
> register one or more of the extensions noted above, but it is out of
> scope to work on other extensions.
>
>
> Milestones:
>  May 2014 - Extensions registry document to IESG
>  Jul 2014 - DNSSEC key relay extension to IESG
>  Jul 2014 - New TLD launch phases extension to IESG
>  Sep 2014 - Internationalized domain names extension 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