[ncdnhc-discuss] Raising the Bar, Moving the Goal Posts and Burning the Bridges

[Jim Fleming]

Note how the U.S. Government helps to raise the bar, and move the goal posts.
This allows the I* society to burn all of the bridges so that other companies can
not enter (compete). Once I ran across a little-known U.S. Federal law that
prohibits U.S. Government employees from working on the development of
computer protocols. That apparently does not apply to the Internet, or Internet2.

http://www.internet2.edu/ipv6/

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02219.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:55:09 -0500
From: Scott Rose <scottr at antd.nist.gov>
To: ietf-provreg at cafax.se
Subject: Minn provreg meeting notes

Here's the first draft of the meeting minutes from the PROVREG WG.
Please send any corrections/comments to me.  If none, the minutes will
be submitted to the meeting proceedings.

Gov't in action ;-)
Scott R.

************************************************************************
Provreg Meeting minutes

1. WG status (Ed Lewis)
 - Core Documents:  In IESG process in various stages
 - Other documents - no discussion
 - 1 Unsolicited individual submission
 - Next target:  move core drafts to draft standard as per RFC 2026
   1.  Patrik F:  We need 2 independent client and 2 servers to test
interop.
    (all must work together)


2. Last Call Comments on EPP drafts (Scott Hollenbeck)
 - Requirements Draft:
  1. WG last call completed
  2. Comments by IESG in Feb, completed in Feb.
  3. Waiting IESG
 - EPP core drafts
  1. Last call ends 29 March - few comments for additions or corrections
 - Questions
Patrik:  IESG or AD has not received any more comments than those
mentioned in the meeting.


3. In-process documents
 - BEEP - new revision available in the future.
  1. Comment:  Is anyone planning any implementation on this draft?
 - Container draft - will not be continued.
 - SMTP draft - Still being worked on (rumor).  Some interest in seeing
this as a draft.
 - Push feature draft - missing description document.  No one has
   responsibility for that draft.  If Push feature is desired, please
submit an
   individual submission draft.

4. Implementations (about 5 )
 - RTK (Sourceforge project) release Java version of registry tool
  1. Different releases for different levels of EPP(draft revisions) -
plan on
     restructuring releases into one package
 - Nominum:  .au registry release.
  1. Adding different extensions than listed in draft
  2. first country code to use EPP
 - Verisign
  1. Non-core effort (smaller domains)  using EPP for registry
  2. When EPP reaches RFC status, .com/net/org will go to EPP
  3. Registry (Verisign) will not hold customer information/contact.
That will still
     reside at the registrar level.
  4. All RRP based registration systems will eventually migrate to EPP
once contract expires
 - .sg registry
  1. assumed that one status for domain name
 - NIC Mexico:
  1. looking at rolling EPP out.  But using other means to authenticate
registrar-registrar
     communication

5. Registry-specific extensions (H. Liu)
 - .us TLD implementation for public review
 - Informational - may not be WG draft, but informational as an
extension to EPP.  Test to
   see if EPP really is extensible and still remain interpretational.
 - Differences from draft specs:
  1. Collect NEXUS info for usTLD registration
  2. 2 new parameters:  AppPurpose and NexusCatagory
 - Alternatives:  Name-value pairs or new XML schema definition
 - Comments:
  1. Where scheme modified?  ContactObject extension field

6. Scott H.  draft on EPP and DNSSEC/ENUM an individual submission, but
belongs/will
   remain independent submission (not DNSEXT) and hoped to be
   included in DNSOP WG
 -
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-secdns-00.txt

7. Next Steps
 - Need for a BCP/Informational RFC on how these extensions should
look?
  1. moved to list
 - Interoperability test:  of core protocol specs, not extensions.
  1. When:  wait until we get RFC status  -  winner
 - No BEEP/SMTP comments

General comments/questions
1. if we start talking about extensions - rechartering necessary?
2. Question of "status of command" request message - what it means and
the status of the draft.
   - Author not present, so no formal answer available.