[77341] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Gtld transfer process
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Lewis)
Tue Jan 18 15:40:40 2005
In-Reply-To: <20050118141856.GA2955@NetBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:39:03 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Cc: ed.lewis@neustar.biz
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Speaking as a co-chair of the erstwhile PROVREG WG, which produced
the EPP documents
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/provreg-charter.html):
At 2:18 PM +0000 1/18/05, someone wrote:
>There seems to be a general lack of IETF design and review of protocols
>in this crucial area. Again not good.
Assuming "this crucial area" to mean registration protocols,
including EPP, IRIS, and DNS, I'd say that there is ample opportunity
for review, although what is done is still insufficient. (It will
always be "insufficient" to some.)
The IETG Working Group's for these protocols are -
EPP - PROVREG WG closed, see above, but the mailing list still runs
IRIS - CRISP WG http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/crisp-charter.html
DNS - DNSEXT WG http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html
and - DNSOP WG http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html
WhoIs and RRP are not related to WG's so far as I can recall.
These web pages mention mailing lists for the groups. That is how to
provide "design and review" without the expense of travel.
I know all about insufficient design and review. I've seen DNSSEC
overhauled when the initial review process failed. As co-chair for
PROVREG, trying to get wider review was the main job. (Early on, no
one wanted to hear about it...)
PS - If you can contribute "client-side" expertise to many of these
protocols, you will be in high-demand.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." - Jebediah Springfield
