Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] our meeting slot in SF

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 07:21:00 -0500

This is an issue-reminder, assuming that the IESG is responsive on the
privacy/data colleciton issue.

mappings over transports other than tcp.

The IESG claim is that commands cannot be reordered, which seems to be
reasonable for the transformational subset of epp commands, but not the
informational subset of epp commands, and this "resonability" appers to
be limited to com/net/org/info/biz/name transactions. Email is used, as
a transport for XML and BNF, elsewhere. Non-interoperation by intent is
an odd proposition, particularly by non-implementors and non-operators.

The IESG claim is also that applications protocols must provide congestion
control. I'm afraid this new requirement seems reflexive, not the product
of actual reflection on the deployment of epp. The publication protocols
commonly in use with registry provisioning include UDP, with absurdly large
difference in scale. Connectionism by design is an odd proposition too,
again by non-implementors and non-operators. It would be reasonable if this
work were within the ITU, which is both connectionist and mandarinist.

Just out of curiosity, since whois is such a problem, why on earth is the
inferred provisioning of social data to the com/net/org et alia whois
servers not _historic_? The US DCA is very, very, dead as an Agency of
Notice or Fashion.

Eric

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:08:20 -0500

I wonder if there might be interest in discussing the topic of IDN/EPP.  I
know that Scott's extension guideline already discussed briefly about it,
but it gave no provisions to the handling of character equivlancy
preparation (Charprep) issues and the related reserved variants and zone
variants management.

I dont have a draft yet, but am working on it.  I gave a presentation on the
issues and some experiments that we have done on a possible architecture for
handling the charprep recently (at the APRICOT) and it received very good
response.  I thought it would be a good idea to present it to the group and
get some feedback as I write my draft on the topic.

Edmon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Lewis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:35 PM
Subject: [ietf-provreg] our meeting slot in SF

> THURSDAY, March 20, 2003
> 0900-1130 Morning Sessions
> APP     provreg   Provisioning Registry Protocol WG
>
>
> Time to send in agenda suggestions...there are some obvious ones, I
> won't disallow anyone from suggesting the obvious. ;)
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
> ARIN Research Engineer
>
>

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:14:37 -0800 (PST)

Edmon,

Since the EPP specs use utf8 why do we need to encode the domains in
punnycode?

-rick

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:21:11 -0500

It is not about punycode.

It is about the handling of character equivalence preparations (what I call
charprep): i.e. the creation of reserved variants and the management of zone
variants.  These charprep variants need to be generated upon domain creation
and conveyed to the registrant.

Examples of charprep include Traditional Chinese-Simplified Chinese Mapping
and visually identical characters in the LGC (Latin, Greek, Cyrilic) space.

Edmon

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:59:37 -0500

Gosh Edmon, don't forget to mention the utility of adding "$" and other
neato gizmos to the string-space.

JonnyCa$h.com, JonnyCash.com, really important stuff like that. It isn't
fair that I'm the only Provreg contributor that you've tried to sell shell
metacharacters to. Everyone should have a crack at adding reserved regex 
chars to their ASCII-only zone files.

I'm going to miss the dim sum in SF...

Eric

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:23:42 -0500

:-)

I thought you didnt like the idea... ;-D

And, I think what we want to discuss in this work group is not the actual
"mapping tables", but the framework for doing provisioning.

It has more to do with how the management of reserved variants and zone
variants can be provisioned.

Edmon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[email-masked]>
To: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Edward Lewis"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] our meeting slot in SF

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:08:14 -0500

> I thought you didnt like the idea... ;-D

Correct.

> "mapping tables", but the framework for doing provisioning.

What part is "interoperable", and subject to specification, assuming that
a requirements statement exists, or can be frobbed up in finite time?

> variants can be provisioned.

This doesn't seem to be a likely candidate for "interoperable", etc., but
by all means, don't listen to me, you've bet your business that I'm wrong
and dns operators are just dying to shell out shell metacharacters to the
clammoring masses.

She sells sea shells by the sea shore ... and in zone files.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:40:32 -0500

----- Original Message -----
> a requirements statement exists, or can be frobbed up in finite time?

The framework of the provisioning should be interoperable and subject to
specification.  For example, on domain create, the response should contain a
list of "reserved variants".  The annoucement of the list and the types of
reserved variants could be specified.  The actual list would be based on the
registry policy.

> This doesn't seem to be a likely candidate for "interoperable", etc.

The policy itself would not be of the interest of this discussion.  Rather
the provisioning protocol should be.  For further example, on query for
domain info there should be additional list that contains the reserved
variants and zone variants.  Also for domain update, there should be ways to
manage the reserved variants and zone variants.  These could all be
standardized even if the particular zone policies are different.  Just like
some TLDs might consider fax number to be "required" and some "optional",
but the provisioning protocol supports the communication of fax numbers.

Edmon

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:58:24 -0500

so, in a nutshell, you'd like a mechanism that allows for the expression
of some new semantic, in particular, some form of equivalence class(es),
where the semantics of "equivalence" is some property of some provisioned
object.

we had this at one point, in one form. containers. mind, it wasn't for
octet or sequenct of octets equivalence classes (however defined).

well, if you can find a general expression, i'd be interested in reading
it.

cheers,
eric