Re: [provreg] Proposed Charter for EPP Extensions (eppext) Working Group

[Dan York <[e-mail]>]

Scott,

I would be willing to participate and review documents.  I'll note that my
specific interest is in accelerating DNSSEC deployment and I see this
registrar/registry communication as one of the areas that needs
improvement/automation. In discussing DNSSEC deployment challenges, we've
also received feedback from registrars that they are frustrated with
having many different ways of communicating with different registries.
While I agree that the variety of business models means there will
continue to be multiple extensions for EPP, I do see value in trying to do
whatever is possible to try to limit the proliferation of a zillion new
EPP extensions by documenting existing extensions and helping new
registries find out about those extensions before inventing their own.

As I don't work with EPP on a regular basis, I don't feel I have the
background to help with the actual writing, but I would be glad to
participate in reviewing.

Dan

P.S. And I do realize that EPP extensions are about far more than DNSSEC -
I was just stating the context for where I personally am coming from.

--
Dan York
Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>   [phone]
Jabber: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Skype: danyork   http://twitter.com/danyork

http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/




On 9/18/13 7:20 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I recently closed a conversation with Applications Area Director Pete
>Resnick to see what he thought about a narrowly-focused charter for a
>working group to develop a registry for EPP extensions. Pete has agreed
>with the concept in principal. I'm including the text of the proposed
>charter that I shared with Pete and I'd like to ask others to review it
>and share feedback as appropriate.
>
>If we have enough support for a proposed charter Pete is willing to
>entertain a chartering request. If there's more to discuss we can ask
>about scheduling a BOF during the Vancouver meeting.
>
>I've got one specific question: are people able and willing to write a
>draft (or drafts) that describe(s) the registry and registration
>procedures? I don't think this will be a difficult task because cloning
>an existing registry is a perfectly reasonable approach, but someone
>needs to do the work. I'm willing to co-chair (if you all will have me)
>if we form a working group, and thus it would be best if we find other
>volunteers to write documents.
>
>Scott
>----------
>Proposed Charter for EPP Extensions (eppext) Working Group
>
>The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) was a work product of the IETF
>Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) working group. EPP was published
>as a Proposed Standard (RFCs 3730, 3731, 3732, 3733, and 3734) in March
>2004. It became a Draft Standard (RFCs 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, and 4934)
>in May 2007, and a Standard (Standard 69; RFCs 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733,
>and 5734) in August 2009. It is the standard domain name provisioning
>protocol for generic top-level domain name registries that operate under
>the auspices of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>(ICANN). It is also used by a number of country code top-level domain
>registries.
>
>Domain name registries implement a variety of business models. The
>difference in these models made it very difficult to come up with a "one
>size fits all" provisioning protocol, so the provreg working group made a
>conscious decision to focus on a minimal set of common functionality. EPP
>was designed to be extensible to allow additional features to be
>specified on an "as needed" basis. Guidelines for extending EPP were
>published as Informational RFC 3735 in March 2004.
>
>The provreg working group was chartered to develop EPP, but not these
>additional extensions. The working group was closed in 2004 after
>producing a number of Proposed Standard specifications. As registries
>began to implement and deploy EPP the need for extensions became real,
>and the user community found itself facing a situation in which multiple
>extensions were being developed by different registries to solve the same
>basic problems, such as registering internationalized domain name
>variants.
>
>ICANN is now well into a program to delegate a large number of new
>generic top-level domains. EPP will be used to provision those domains,
>and new registry operators are expected to develop additional protocol
>extensions. With no way to coordinate the development of these
>extensions, the problem of non-standard extension duplication is only
>expected to become worse.
>
>The goal of the EPP Extensions (eppext) working group is to develop an
>IANA registry of EPP extensions and procedures to review specifications
>for inclusion in the registry. It will accomplish this goal in two steps:
>
>1. Develop a Proposed Standard specification for the registration and
>review of EPP extensions. There is no current Internet Draft that
>describes this process.
>
>2. Test the extension registration process by developing a small number
>of standards track extensions that currently exist in Internet Draft
>form, including:
>
>draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay
>(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/)
>
>draft-obispo-epp-idn
>(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-obispo-epp-idn/)
>
>draft-tan-epp-launchphase
>(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-epp-launchphase/)
>draft-lozano-tmch-smd
>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-smd/)
>draft-tan-epp-launchphase has a normative dependency on
>draft-lozano-tmch-smd.
>
>When these milestones have been completed the working group will consider
>rechartering to explore the issue of ongoing extension development and
>standardization. Modifications to EPP itself are explicitly out of scope
>for this working group.
>
>Milestones:
>
>TBD Extensions registry document to IESG
>
>TBD draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay to IESG
>
>TBD draft-obispo-epp-idn to IESG
>
>TBD draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-lozano-tmch-smd to IESG
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>provreg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg