Subject: [ietf-provreg] Fwd: Re: provreg milestones

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:38:02 -0500

Also to the group - as far as the privacy thing being resolved, I'm a 
bit hesitant to declare consensus yet to the proposal in:

# From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
# Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:02:34 -0500
#
# As far as .com is concerned, I have no doubt that an extension will be
# required even if we were to adopt the IESG's element tagging suggestion.
# That being the case, my preference would be to put _all_ of the DNP syntax
# and semantics into an extension (where the problem can be addressed as a
# whole) while making the existing DCP element mandatory if that resolves the
# privacy issue with the IESG.

(Aka - http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2003-03/msg00010.html)

So let me hear about that...

>Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:48:31 +0100
>Subject: Re: provreg milestones
>Cc: [email-masked], Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
>To: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
>From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 20:48:37.0518 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[C2ED4AE0:01C2E421]
>Status:
>
>This looks good.
>
>Please send the new milestones to [email-masked].
>
>I also understand the privacy thing is now resolved. I saw a few 
>messages on the mailing list about it.
>
>May I suggest you (or someone) write a summary of what the solution 
>is, and send it to me, randy, allison (and also cc Ned and Ted as 
>co-AD's -- yes, Ted is formally not onboard, but anyway). You can of 
>course also cc the mailing list if you want to.
>
>     paf
>
>On torsdag, mar 6, 2003, at 16:59 Europe/Stockholm, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
>>  I've heard no response to this from 'above.'
>>
>>  The FEB 03 milestone now should be MAR 03 I guess.
>>
>>>  Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:14:40 -0500
>>>  To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>>>  From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
>>>  Subject: provreg milestones
>>>  Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>>>  Bcc:
>>>  X-Attachments:
>>>
>>>  While we still have an open issue with regards to privacy, I want 
>>>to move on and at least refresh the group's milestones.
>>>
>>>  FEB 03 Respond to the IESG Comments (for Proposed)
>>>  MAR 03 Submit Guidelines for Extending the EPP to IESG (Informational)
>>>  APR 03 Decision on Alternate Transports
>>>  SEP 03 Perform Interoperability Tests
>>>  OCT 03 Submit Interoperability Report to IESG (Informational)
>>>  OCT 03 Submit Extensible Provisioning Protocol to IESG (Draft)
>>>  OCT 03 Submit EPP Contact Mapping to IESG (Draft)
>>>  OCT 03 Submit EPP Domain Name Mapping to IESG (Draft)
>>>  OCT 03 Submit EPP Host Mapping to IESG (Draft)
>>>  OCT 03 Submit EPP Transport Over TCP to IESG (Draft)
>>>
>>>  Look these over carefully.  I added the first because we haven't 
>>>closed that off, as well as having some potential threads to cover 
>>>in addition to the privacy question.
>>>
>>>  A "Decision on Alternate Transports" is on there because our 
>>>charter talks about  "support for multiple operational choices, 
>>>such as for transport".  At times support has been expressed for 
>>>BEEP, SMTP, and SOAP, but none have garnered much support.  My 
>>>vague opinion is that alternate transports will need to come with 
>>>code, not just documents, before they can be taken seriously by 
>>>the WG.
>>>
>>>  Note that SMTP and SOAP milestones are not on there.  Not to 
>>>denigrate the work, but they haven't made it to general interest 
>>>for the WG.
>>>
>>>  With this message I am asking our AD to approve these milestones, 
>>>we can adjust them as necessary.
>>
>>  -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>  Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
>>  ARIN Research Engineer
>>
>
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Daniel Manley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:13:46 -0500

Here's my vote for consensus.  Let's put this to rest.  This solution 
addresses enough to declare privacy policy to EPP clients.  With the 
variety of privacy policies out there in the world, putting client 
overrides into the extension framework keep this flexible for all 
parties involved.  EPP's been all about extensibility from the start.

Dan

Edward Lewis wrote:

>>>> code, not just documents, before they can be taken seriously by the 
>>>> WG.
>>>>