Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-hollenbeck-epp-ext-00.txt

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:28:00 -0400

Folks,

Do we make this a WG item?

At 12:54 PM -0400 8/28/02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>FYI...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]

>	Title		: Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
>                          Provisioning Protocol
>	Author(s)	: S. Hollenbeck
>	Filename	: draft-hollenbeck-epp-ext-00.txt
>	Pages		: 26
>	Date		: 2002-8-27

>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-ext-00.txt

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Asbjorn Steira <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:21:11 +0100

I think this is a WG item, but ideally I would have liked to see the 
guidelines as part of the base protocol.

Btw, there seems to be a typo in "2.6 Command-Response Extension", where 
it refers to 2.7.1 of the base protocol. I think it should refer to 
2.7.3 instead...

Asbjorn

-- 
Asbjorn Steira
The Global Name Registry, Limited

Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our company.    This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for disclosure to other parties.
*****************
What's your .name?
Get one at www.name
*****************

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:31:15 -0400

>as part of the base protocol.

I understand your comment, but the realities of IETF document 
processing is that  we are better off splitting the two.  I.e., while 
the process for the base spec has been chugging along for some time 
now we have been learning the lessons that are (or will be) in this 
document.  Had we waited on starting the base spec, we'd have far 
less experience by now.

Perhaps when we submit the documents needed to pass EPP onto the next 
level of standard (if, when), we can roll the guidelines into the 
base spec.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Asbjorn Steira <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:49:53 +0100

Edward Lewis wrote:
> I understand your comment, but the realities of IETF document processing 
> is that  we are better off splitting the two.  I.e., while the process 
> for the base spec has been chugging along for some time now we have been 
> learning the lessons that are (or will be) in this document.  Had we 
> waited on starting the base spec, we'd have far less experience by now.
> 
> level of standard (if, when), we can roll the guidelines into the base 
> spec.

I see your point about the different levels of "maturity" of the two 
documents, and if it is at all possible at a later stage to include the 
guidelines in the base protocol (even though I can't really see that 
happening), that would be great.

Cheers,

Asbjorn