Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-00 Feedback

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

op 09-07-14 12:54, Hollenbeck, Scott schreef:
> WG chairs: can we do this? Our charter doesn’t specifically
> identify the intended status of the in-charter extensions.

[hat on]
Our charter does not specify that documentation for an extension needs
to have a status, as that was left as the topic for discussion for the
process in the registry document.
The charter talks about registration of extensions, not standards.

The milestones seem to suggest that the 3 example extensions need to be
documented by the IETF though, be it that the status of the IETF
document is not defined in the milestones, they can also be
experimental. That seems to suggest that "documentation required" in the
registry document is not sufficient to meet our charter, and that "RFC
required" is the minimum for at least the 3 example extensions.

The charter also says that "the problem of non-standard extension
duplication by multiple operators" is the problem we're trying to solve
with the registry. I would say keep it simple. It's a standard, or it's
not, it's implemented, or it's not.

I would advise the WG to review the registry document in WGLC with these
specific requirements in mind.
There is a possibility to not register the extensions mentioned in our
charter due to a lack of standardization, but standardizing the
extensions or at least documenting them in the IETF is in our charter.
[/hat on]

[no hat]
The wish to harmonize extensions is a specific wish from the registrar
community, that I don't see well represented in the EPPEXT WG.

The specific wish to be able to register a proprietary extension came
from some in the registry community as an argument against "RFC required".

I may have a suggestion around this:
What if we allow proprietary extensions to be registered, but with the
specific notion that it is a proprietary extension and not a standard?

One way to do this is to say that when the "TLDs" field in the registry
identifies specific TLD's, "documentation required" is sufficient, but
when "ANY" or "Any" is used, it must be a standard and therefor "RFC
required". Perhaps the words "ANY" or "Any" should be replaced by
"STANDARD" or "Standard"?

This way we accommodate inclusion in the registry for proprietary
extensions, but we do meet our charter in trying to solve the
non-standard extension duplication. Many registries will only implement
the "standard" extensions, and will be aware that a proprietary
extension may not be supported by all registrars so they loose market
share.

Mind though that it is not compulsory to register a proprietary
extension. I personally feel registering a proprietary extension is a
failure to meet market demand.
[/no hat]




- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Technical Policy Advisor SIDN
Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands

P: [phone]  M: [phone]
Mailto: [e-mail]
XMPP: [e-mail]
HTTP://www.sidn.nl/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTvUAmAAoJEDqHrM883AgnzmUH/Aqe1DDfs5t0s0Zqk70DfG/M
Sp9jhYQJkSz+ignqKXU/A+q3G4QZ39p34TV551eqBMBuqdVSq3nlMHTVrQj4xLdW
rS2ZRiW0cRXQhf/Ei6DLj572yN4QusBIuPIdw//vuflC2xgKzslAyaBLrL577RHD
Av7r/Lq9wtyvdYmBjJQ+x6y20TnnLuKDpGzYKXWaIWhReHQH6ODXmsSOu4Qjs+dL
YdteEDj5DBtCrjZjsMPIi1nPEaXEwGhf/GnmH3Ye17HzHqqs7TAQ5dqw8r9+2bI8
lRuzBKgUy8BLheCHetcUvxEOmwA+zx1lVDQheBjcN7hEc+qWYD6n6saQuz1CG2E=
=V1ur
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----