Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-gould-rfc4310bis (Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:31:18 +0100 (CET)

I am a bit puzzeled that according to

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-gould-rfc4310bis/

draft-gould-rfc4310bis has already been placed on the IESG Telechat 
agenda, before the IETF Last Call has even ended.

Did this happen intentionally or by mistake?

Please be informed that on the provreg mailing list

   http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2010-01/maillist.html

there is a heavy discussion going on about the shortcomings of the current 
proposal. At least two issues have been identified so far:

1) XML namespace (interoperability issues as with the current proposal
    the feature negotiation does not work anymore as defined by the EPP
    core spec)

2) need for active / inactive flag (e.g. to mark a DS to be used for
    emergency key rollover)

Before these (and other) issues have been resolved, IMHO it does not make 
sense to discuss the I-D on the IESG Telechat.

The current proposal is still premature.

Furthermore due to lack of a Working Group (and lack of an _official_ IETF 
mailing list for EPP), many stakeholders are not even aware of EPP 
proposals going through standardization, which is somewhat in 
contradiction to the IETF transparency goals.

Have a nice weekend!

cheers,
  Bernie

-- 

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization

Original Message:
> [...]
> Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-02-16. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> [...]
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> [...]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19451&rfc_flag=0

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:11:20 +0000

Hi Bernie,

> Did this happen intentionally or by mistake?

Many Area Directors put documents on IESG telechats before IETF Last 
Calls are over. In such cases Area Directors assume that any issues will 
be settled before the selected telechat date. But a document can be 
moved to another telechat or taken off any particular telechat at any 
moment.

> there is a heavy discussion going on about the shortcomings of the 
> current proposal. At least two issues have been identified so far:
>
> Before these (and other) issues have been resolved, IMHO it does not 
> make sense to discuss the I-D on the IESG Telechat.
>

Ok, I will make sure the issues are resolved before the document goes to 
IESG.

> Furthermore due to lack of a Working Group (and lack of an _official_ 
> IETF mailing list for EPP

Can you please explain your concerns about lack of an official IETF 
mailing list?

> ), many stakeholders are not even aware of EPP proposals going through 
> standardization, which is somewhat in contradiction to the IETF 
> transparency goals.
>
> Have a nice weekend!
>
> cheers,
>  Bernie

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:35:09 +0000

[...]

>> make sense to discuss the I-D on the IESG Telechat.
I've just checked my inbox and the editor already sent me a message 
about these issues.

> Ok, I will make sure the issues are resolved before the document goes 
> to IESG.

I also forgot to mention that I actually expect a new revision anyway - 
there are some pending changes due to my AD review.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:01:28 -0600

Just to strengthen Alexey's statement...

> Many Area Directors put documents on IESG telechats before IETF Last Calls 
> are over. In such cases Area Directors assume that any issues will be 
> settled before the selected telechat date. But a document can be moved to 
> another telechat or taken off any particular telechat at any moment.

Not only "can be moved or taken off", telechat agendas, but it's quite 
common in my experience (as IESG scribe for several years). The ADs are 
trying to advance documents that are sent forward for publication without 
procedural delays, but they really do pull stuff that's not ready, and they 
can pull it at any time. I can't remember that happening AFTER a telechat 
begins, but I can remembering it happening during agenda-bashing at the 
beginning of a number of telechats.

So, please continue spirited technical discussion! As we used to say in the 
Working Group Chairs training session, no technical concern is ever "too 
late to be considered".

I hope this is helpful,

Spencer

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:53:59 +0100 (CET)

Hi Alexey

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> are over. In such cases Area Directors assume that any issues will be settled 
> before the selected telechat date. But a document can be moved to another 
> telechat or taken off any particular telechat at any moment.

Thanks for your clarifications on this.

> Ok, I will make sure the issues are resolved before the document goes to 

Good.

>> IETF mailing list for EPP ), many stakeholders are not even aware of 
>> EPP proposals going through standardization, which is somewhat in 

> Can you please explain your concerns about lack of an official IETF mailing 
> list?

I care about the following:

1) Quality of the Standards
2) Openness / transparency of the Standards process
3) Checks and balance in the system

I am not sure whether the EPP standardization has always addressed these 
points adequately in the past.

Since the provreg WG has been closed (approx. 7 years ago), quite some 
standardization work has been done on EPP. The proposals were discussed on 
the provreg list (hosted outside IETF for historical reasons) and went 
through the IESG as AD sponsored. I am not sure whether all the relevant 
stakeholders have been involved in this process adequately.

To come back to your question: An _official_ mailing list hosted by the 
IETF makes it easier for people, who do not know the history of EPP, to 
get to know about ongoing standardization work and join the discussion 
early.

The more I think about, the more I believe we need a Working Group to 
handle (future) Registry/Registrar related matters such a EPP (but that's 
a different topic...).

Have a nice weekend!

cheers,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/