Re: About the Push vs. not Push Resend ?

[Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>]

>
>
>I am curious about where folks are coming from, not for counting or voting.
>I see a lot of discussion that seems to be prompted from the gTLD
>community's contractural dealings with ICANN and then reverse discussion
>from some ccTLDs, and not much from "others" - including the RIR's.

I'm sorry if this gets posted twice by I did not see it show up on the 
list. Apologies if it did.

Well Ed .. I'm afraid I have a slightly different view here :


>After going through the email and minutes, I think that there is a need to
>poll the list to see if folks want the "push" mechanism to be defined or
>not.  As far as the merits of such a mechanism, please refrain from
>commenting on that, as it appears in archived messages.  My sense is that
>we aren't arguing the merits of push, but rather, whether implementors
>would be willing to add this feature in response to user (registr*) needs.

In the interest of trying to create a complete and extensible protocol 
there no good reason not to include push mechanisms, or the use of BXXP for 
that matter.  I would like to remind the list that the protocols being 
developed here may have uses outside TLD's in the future and arbitrary 
attempts to restrict its functionality purely to satisfy the limited 
requirements of that special interest group is "a bad thing" tm.

Though the RIR's may not be ready to use the output of this group at this 
time I feel it incumbent on myself to make sure that their options are not 
foreclosed.

If you don't want to use push mechanisms you don't have to. Why is it so 
difficult to develop a good registration provisioning protocol first and 
then see how it can be adapted to the needs of the TLD community vs this 
narrow and parochial view that if it isn't useful for TLD's then who cares.

And I say that as the co-Chair of the IETF ENUM working group....and FYI 
Scott Hollenbeck has recently posted a most interesting and thoughtful 
draft on how some of the work going on here might be adapted to RFC2916.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-e164-00.txt

And though this draft does not specifically discuss the seemingly endless 
layer 9 issues of transport and push I would like it known that might be 
useful to ENUM implementers in the future and there are discussions going 
on in several countries on how 2916 might be deployed and the work of this 
group could ,in that context, set an important precedent.

So Yes to push.


>In your response, let me know which registr*'s you are speaking for, so
>that we can determine if there is a pattern to differing opinions (e.g.,
>gTLDs vs. ccTLDs).  If you feel that you don't want to disclose this
>publicly, please send the message to just "[e-mail], [e-mail]"
>- ie the chairs.  If you do this, it might be a good idea to send a public
>version of your message to the list so others know how you feel on the
>issue.

and if you havent already figured it out I have a TLD interest here as well 
. I work for NeuStar who is a JV operator of .BIZ with our partners 
Melbourne IT.




>I am looking more for a demographic behind the opinions than size.  If
>there is a systemic difference of opinion, then it is easier to try and
>adjust the solution - I hope.
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
>Phone: [phone]                      Email: [e-mail]
>
>You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.
>
>Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: [phone]
<mailto: [e-mail]> or
<mailto: [e-mail]>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<