Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: Last Call: draft-gould-rfc4310bis (Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:31:18 +0100 (CET)

I am a bit puzzeled that according to

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-gould-rfc4310bis/

draft-gould-rfc4310bis has already been placed on the IESG Telechat 
agenda, before the IETF Last Call has even ended.

Did this happen intentionally or by mistake?

Please be informed that on the provreg mailing list

   http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2010-01/maillist.html

there is a heavy discussion going on about the shortcomings of the current 
proposal. At least two issues have been identified so far:

1) XML namespace (interoperability issues as with the current proposal
    the feature negotiation does not work anymore as defined by the EPP
    core spec)

2) need for active / inactive flag (e.g. to mark a DS to be used for
    emergency key rollover)

Before these (and other) issues have been resolved, IMHO it does not make 
sense to discuss the I-D on the IESG Telechat.

The current proposal is still premature.

Furthermore due to lack of a Working Group (and lack of an _official_ IETF 
mailing list for EPP), many stakeholders are not even aware of EPP 
proposals going through standardization, which is somewhat in 
contradiction to the IETF transparency goals.

Have a nice weekend!

cheers,
  Bernie

-- 

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

Original Message:
> [...]
> Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-02-16. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> [...]
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> [...]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19451&rfc_flag=0
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email-masked]

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:53:59 +0100 (CET)

Hi Alexey

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Many Area Directors put documents on IESG telechats before IETF Last Calls 
> are over. In such cases Area Directors assume that any issues will be settled 
> before the selected telechat date. But a document can be moved to another 
> telechat or taken off any particular telechat at any moment.

Thanks for your clarifications on this.

> Ok, I will make sure the issues are resolved before the document goes to 
> IESG.

Good.

>> Furthermore due to lack of a Working Group (and lack of an _official_ 
>> IETF mailing list for EPP ), many stakeholders are not even aware of 
>> EPP proposals going through standardization, which is somewhat in 

> Can you please explain your concerns about lack of an official IETF mailing 
> list?

I care about the following:

1) Quality of the Standards
2) Openness / transparency of the Standards process
3) Checks and balance in the system

I am not sure whether the EPP standardization has always addressed these 
points adequately in the past.

Since the provreg WG has been closed (approx. 7 years ago), quite some 
standardization work has been done on EPP. The proposals were discussed on 
the provreg list (hosted outside IETF for historical reasons) and went 
through the IESG as AD sponsored. I am not sure whether all the relevant 
stakeholders have been involved in this process adequately.

To come back to your question: An _official_ mailing list hosted by the 
IETF makes it easier for people, who do not know the history of EPP, to 
get to know about ongoing standardization work and join the discussion 
early.

The more I think about, the more I believe we need a Working Group to 
handle (future) Registry/Registrar related matters such a EPP (but that's 
a different topic...).

Have a nice weekend!

cheers,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/