Re: [registrars] Generic RRP Working Group - IETF

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Paul,

With respect, your point evades me. I completely understand the need for a
high level of involvement on a variety of levels within the IETF to ensure
that the work product is useful to a broad range of constituents, but I
don't understand what you are saying here. Notes below...


> This message is directed at Techies!! - IT MAY AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS - so
> I suggest involvement in the process.....
>
> At the recent San Diego IETF meeting it was decided to start a working
> on defining a common standard for the Registry/Registrar Protocol.  The
> proposed timetable is very short but the ramifications significant if
> adopted (by ICANN)

The timetable proposed is not something that ICANN needs or would approve.
This is purely a working group (not sure if it actually is a working group
yet) goal. Even if it were, what are the ramifications you perceive?

> for both Registrars and those proposing new gTLD
> registries.  As with much in this world ...technology is not the main
> issue but the political environment in which technology may be
> employed....

But in this case, the technology is the issue. While the IETF process might
include certain political elements, it (unlike ICANN), actually does conduct
it's work primarily as a technical coordination and determination body.
Check out RFC 2026 for a great overview of IETF practices. The important
points of which are embodied in this paragraph...

"the process of creating an Internet Standard is straightforward:  a
specification undergoes a period of development and several iterations of
review by the Internet community and revision based upon experience, is
adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body (see below), and is published.
In practice, the process is more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of
creating specifications of high technical quality;  (2) the need to consider
the interests of all of the affected parties;  (3) the importance of
establishing widespread community consensus;  and (4) the difficulty of
evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the Internet
community."


> Much relies upon XML (no problems) but legal issues may arise over where
> which clients you may offer services to (using such technology)

What are these issues? This is the first that I have heard of any potential
interoperability issues predicated on legal concerns.

> and the
> manner in which information is transmitted from Customer to Registrar
> and Registrar to Registry.
>

Which is mostly the point of the group's efforts - to enhance the manner in
which information is transmitted from Registrar to Registry. However, it is
out of scope thus far to engage in work concerning Customer to Registrar. I
suppose the last mile while be implicitly effected, but I've not seen
anything that indicates that the resultant standard will in any way mandate
how Registrant <-> Registrar interactions are conducted.


> I am on vacation at the moment and thus not able to particiapte/respond
> to emails etc, but strongly suggest Registrar Constituency members get
> involved... The list is located at <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> (enter
> SUBSCRIBE in the body of the message)

I would like to echo this comment with a modifier. In order that the IETF
process be effective, it is important that all involved participate from the
standpoint of creating the best possible technical description of a new
standard. *NOT* engage in a negotiation rooted in compromise. We've already
what the practical result of engaging in the latter behavior gets us. Let's
not turn the Prov/Reg effort into yet another poorly executed idea because
of political concerns.


>
> Happy New Year to all.....
>

And to you and yours as well!

-rwr