Subject: Internet Registration Bar BOF announcement

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:59:49 -0500

During IETF 77, meeting March 21-26 in Anaheim, there will be a Bar 
BOF held to discuss the following work items:

1. Extensions to EPP as it exists today
2. Requirements for EPPbis
3. Requirements for the submission of DNSSEC's DS record into the
    registration system

The Bar BOF will be on the same day as Registry Data Escrow/Internet 
Registration Escrow BOF, Wednesday, March 24.  The time will be 
approximately 7:30pm (after the plenary) and the location TBD.

Some context:

There is a regular BOF scheduled that applies to registration activity:
    Registry Data Escrow/Internet Registration Escrow BOF
That BOF is on "yet another topic" related to registration operations 
and has a clearer focus than this bar BOF.  (The goal of the bar BOF 
is to help organize an effort to have a BOF at the next IETF.)

EPP is a full standard (STD69) and is designed to be extensible.  One 
effort is to try to publicize the extensions being made that are not 
documented in the RFC document series.  In addition, the growth of 
registration organizations has pointed out that the basic EPP 
protocol has some built-in assumptions about the operations 
environment, the second effort is to understand the limitations and 
possibly generate a EPPbis requirements.

DNSSEC generates data that must be transferred from one management 
zone to another.  In the business world, the interface between 
management zones have evolved into numerous forms.  The data DNSSEC 
needs to transfer is a hash of something, that is, data that is not 
"on the tip of anyone's tongue."

The work as envisioned may or may not easily fit into the IETF's 
notion of a (single) WG, not even a focused BOF.  The goal of this 
discussion is to try to come up with a plan for establishing a more 
universal means for registration of Internet objects, including 
DNSSEC data recognizing that we also have an installed base that is 
functioning.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

As with IPv6, the problem with the deployment of frictionless surfaces is
that they're not getting traction.

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:42:29 +0000

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:
> [...]
> DNSSEC generates data that must be transferred from one management zone to
> another.

Plain DNS does too. DNSSEC makes the problem more painful, but that does
not mean the scope should be limited to DS records.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:48:56 -0500

>not mean the scope should be limited to DS records.

That will probably come up in the discussion. But so far no one on 
the "would make use of this" side of the discussion has asked for 
that.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:54:10 +0000

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:

> That will probably come up in the discussion. But so far no one on the "would
> make use of this" side of the discussion has asked for that.

Even if the regi*s don't, there are plenty of delegation points lower
in the DNS that could make use of more automation.

Tony.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:59:12 -0500

>in the DNS that could make use of more automation.

It's possible that we are talking about two different problem domains.