Subject: [ietf-provreg] provreg milestones

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:14:40 -0500

While we still have an open issue with regards to privacy, I want to 
move on and at least refresh the group's milestones.

FEB 03 Respond to the IESG Comments (for Proposed)
MAR 03 Submit Guidelines for Extending the EPP to IESG (Informational)
APR 03 Decision on Alternate Transports
SEP 03 Perform Interoperability Tests
OCT 03 Submit Interoperability Report to IESG (Informational)
OCT 03 Submit Extensible Provisioning Protocol to IESG (Draft)
OCT 03 Submit EPP Contact Mapping to IESG (Draft)
OCT 03 Submit EPP Domain Name Mapping to IESG (Draft)
OCT 03 Submit EPP Host Mapping to IESG (Draft)
OCT 03 Submit EPP Transport Over TCP to IESG (Draft)

Look these over carefully.  I added the first because we haven't 
closed that off, as well as having some potential threads to cover in 
addition to the privacy question.

A "Decision on Alternate Transports" is on there because our charter 
talks about  "support for multiple operational choices, such as for 
transport".  At times support has been expressed for BEEP, SMTP, and 
SOAP, but none have garnered much support.  My vague opinion is that 
alternate transports will need to come with code, not just documents, 
before they can be taken seriously by the WG.

Note that SMTP and SOAP milestones are not on there.  Not to 
denigrate the work, but they haven't made it to general interest for 
the WG.

With this message I am asking our AD to approve these milestones, we 
can adjust them as necessary.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:55:09 -0500

Ed,

In the muddle of privacy/dataprotection/security/mumble, we've the
minor problem of whether the contributors to this WG are specifying
is a protocol which performs onward-transport of data acquired by
some other mechanism(s), or is a protocol which performs acquisition
of data (in the IESG model the data is meta-data) in addition to the
onward-transport function.

Little substantive communication on this subject is taking place on
the mailing list. That's a problem that can't be solved in San Fran.

Eric

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:28:23 -0500

Yes, that's a point.

In my personal experience in IETF-style discussions, there have been 
times when a 'A vs. B' thread trails on indefinitely.  Looking back 
at those, what I've come to realize is that the participants are 
often way too focused on the 'A vs. B' and not looking at why there's 
a competition.

This might be the case with the privacy 'thing.'  (Thing - the issues 
surrounding the answer to 'that' IESG comment.)  Perhaps we need to 
step back, address the context, and then dive in again.

How to overcome this needs discussion.  I've been squeezed schedule 
wise to set anything up other than rely on the mailing list.  I think 
that we need to have some non-text based communications on this and 
waiting until March isn't desirable.

My schedule gets nasty starting next week.  I'm on the road from the 
4th-12th and 15th-26th of February and then the 9th of March until 
after the IETF.  (The usual Internet winter road show.)  Perhaps it 
would be beneficial if we had an interim telecon to talk about 
solving this.  Not about how to address the IESG comment per se - 
like what XML to do - but what we think we can consider.

I won't have access to setting one up for pretty much the month of 
February.  Would anyone like to volunteer a conference bridge and see 
if we can find a time slot most of us can live with?