Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02

Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com> Thu, 31 May 2018 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <pm@dotandco.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB4312E9DA for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dotandco.com header.b=HzwHgWvo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=I/hn66eF
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZLCPoDObjSy for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C69C612E8D1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A44621B3E for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2018 21:39:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 May 2018 21:39:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dotandco.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=lF+sdDLEMeS9fKQMtcslSxLUwOBxG UNme0aTt+rzbrw=; b=HzwHgWvo0QwonSAqksJh153/uosJTgNX/xBQmpP6iOlcf /D03GxGtYVtCjW/hrmOsVGbWjDVKrv4/bgZPpLDm+dFeLR1ZqN4d+BaKNyDifms2 fBVbGKFalh7MitliWm8hrcRp0GL5uTTvjCloAt5X/BqPF1RzNrsDZvmUHGpzMrD/ o31J8xO7ge3c1n4FoUU/OZo5uejjEWbEi192zmUiai4Dv891dazEpapGiUWE5ysG B6pocncQr1PQ81MlpLtTfk2NID+TxaRNVDFPHxIboKqCc30PxayOFRMQZohUqpDF cn8GpDDJTCqIQbUz4WGGaRCYa7phB5q4k6uHZoL1Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=lF+sdD LEMeS9fKQMtcslSxLUwOBxGUNme0aTt+rzbrw=; b=I/hn66eFNsAMJL8KkbdT91 QHgjYtqLnQ38ASduc0UPhGy3TZfbN7qBpA2lcw291UKIGKT4rah4DtxFrQRx6SCk kvYF3+X1AXr38hs0zjzo3K0M35XyhZ3ZAJpcXf02avLePKjX/UnzZDADYBzX3cO3 VSbHIe4ZMXBzQRt6I5JpUgfnDXAvdWwpUWHsqfXxLZ2EbpreiIp9NrGMhh5mFOJf oQ234XYAbLBZ3cRPBmNw/VljBTdODQh9pZI2RgcVVw5ofLm+O1mE8jbdt6u5xFvR Uk3A84ocPvPXxtwk11AHjFFOl5H91VG+iZZAtaA2qQW/QM+nZhJlyWGguqBPcdwg ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V1IPWyptNk8Ii3CN_JMlPFxMLxpoiOYFKcR-W9e-eSDo6Ig0sNMK7g>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V1IPWxYGbhV0QOIWB1C3Fc3sXFNl8S7zuu2nO89wOcf0YSjh3BiZfw>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V1IPWzV6yDiRmNd9BYYkOPVPUmclcxJes-kAAChTTHTbLuQEfRS_Jg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V1IPWy8dDPht6oKirPy6e-cff6fjWGpDUE1kbO2ctR7R_snFucgPzw>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V1IPW0-rgifnwL5cBwh7CejbUh1D8NSf9TCV36yZBD6asZZ1Bcq5Lg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:WFIPW2Bz287UPnRXnFI-I_bKFfbB0cebH1FxTIq5SXTTJjVaToeBhA>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:V1IPW5xAQxERZ07MG4omnipC-UBaJ4Y8t2jvGQeOeMwrztSv0-Y1lQSLuNw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id C17099E3A4; Wed, 30 May 2018 21:39:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1527730775.4140882.1391210040.18F0AA4B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com>
To: regext@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-397f98d6
In-Reply-To: <B657C814-1385-4059-B118-2FAC01523470@antoin.nl>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 03:39:35 +0200
References: <80ED56C6-75F7-4DED-927B-E0AB528A71EE@elistx.com> <656C123C-9ECF-434D-948D-4E704ED3E75C@elistx.com> <1526872740.790268.1378875200.662ECDF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <A9E94F6D-1C51-47C4-B74D-22D40841317C@dnsbelgium.be> <B0F071B4-DF2D-4E46-9002-C7FFAA5DAC25@dnsbelgium.be> <1527140656.2870129.1382989368.51CB4B29@webmail.messagingengine.com> <E200CA5E-FB32-4767-B837-35560EA0EF06@dnsbelgium.be> <DA1F19C3-209A-40B7-A872-21582D25A5A1@verisign.com> <1D86FAEA-9A4D-4BD8-B280-067FFAEB3D54@antoin.nl> <1527448997.1643063.1387308680.73816387@webmail.messagingengine.com> <0ADC1E6A-87BF-4C27-B982-EB43FAEB4916@antoin.nl> <1527540044.154247.1388335520.68ECC648@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1527540505.157331.1388343424.0B8EF8F3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <B657C814-1385-4059-B118-2FAC01523470@antoin.nl>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/hZMJIY_Boe-Nqdc9a7jBGhzZ2TM>
Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 01:39:39 -0000

On Wed, May 30, 2018, at 22:24, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> I remember a CENTR meeting where ccTLD’s tried to get consensus over if 
> we could harmonize EPP extensions so registrars would not have to code 
> differently for every TLD.
> This was before EPPEXT existed.
> We all thought this would be a good idea.
> But half the registries concluded that they wanted to stick to their own 
> extensions because they felt local legislation or their local 
> constituencies required them so, and the other half had the standpoint 
> that they would only implement as followers, after extensions would be 
> standardized.

I have thought for a long time about EPP standardization and I came into conclusion that if consolidation does not happen it is for reasons outside of the technical realm. Hence my belief no technical solutions would change any of it.

> This was not only TLD registries that had an opinion, 
> and I remember some hesitation especially by ICANN registrars as well 
> because they didn't want extra work, but third party dns-operators, 
> ICANN related policy makers, RIR’s, registrants and plain IETF protocol 
> guardians also have an equal voice in the IETF process, even though they 
> don’t implement.

While every voice is welcome at the table, I still like and favor the idea of "running code". Besides rough consensus which you are all saying we have, so let us go forward on this topic and standardize this extension that so many actors want or agree to.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek