Subject: [ire] BoF mode

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:59:59 -0500

Reading over the discussion from yesterday...

The mysterious "we" that started the ball rolling are Francisco 
Arias, Jim Galvin and myself.  As we don't work geographically near 
each other, the short term organizing has been a little disjoint.

Hopefully we have a physical BoF in Anaheim, Jim and I will be the chairs.

The comments about the word "protocol" and the questions about scope 
are good ones, and somewhat anticipated.

"Protocol" has a wide range of meanings although in the IETF we tend 
to think of a protocol as the way you send data back and forth.  When 
the list announcement was made I did hesitate to leave protocol in 
because I know most will think of something over a transport.  But I 
left it in because of the broader definition (a way to do things) - 
and that in the past there ASN.1 was an OSI Presentation Layer 
"protocol."  And, I did figure that the use of the word there would 
grab some attention.

This isn't to quibble over it, just to mention that yeah, I knew 
you'd think that...

As far as the scope questions, this is what we want to cover.  In 
coming days there will be more put to the list by Francisco in the 
form of an internet-draft.  The hope is that we can define a broadest 
reasonable audience for the work.  I can't promise all comers will 
have needs addressed, but we want to start wider so we won't go back 
later and think we purposely excluded someone.

One regret with PROVREG (the WG that reviewed EPP) is that there are 
many who said "if we know how this would grow, we'd have participated 
and lobbyied for other changes."  I'm sure IRE won't be the end-all 
in escrow but we want to maximize it's applicability.

    Is it reasonable to use an escrow dump of an RIR to let a domain name
    registry provide a temporary backup facility?  Dunno.

Well, we are in BoF mode now.  We want to shape the work and present 
to the IETF AD (Applications Area) an proposal for a WG (if we get 
there).  That's the next "process" target.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

As with IPv6, the problem with the deployment of frictionless surfaces is
that they're not getting traction.