RE: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00

["Richard Shockey" <richard at shockey.us>]

Well ..I guess that is why we are not having a formal PEPPERMINT BOF right?

Cullen there is a community that wants to flush out the issues you correctly
point out here before Chicago.

I want a meeting room in Prague to do this. If I ask the Secretariat for a
non official BOF will you approve it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy at cisco.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:52 PM
> To: enum at ietf.org
> Subject: [Enum] draft-lewis-peppermint-enum-reg-if-00
> 
> 
> Ok, so i read this and got the idea that EPP is really bad but I got
> no idea of what the problem folks want to solve is. I certainly have
> no idea how to design a reasonable protocol to support it.
> 
> I understand that there are some requirements for provisioning
> peering services (whatever a peering service provider is). However,
> this draft does not help me understand what is is the semantic level
> information that needs to be provisioned, why, and what constraints
> the trust and administrative boundaries place on the protocol.
> 
> I think this can be evolved into a draft that covers all that
> information well but my suggestion would be to focus on the high
> level models and requirements then we can figure out design that
> meets the needs.
> 
> Cullen <with my individual hat on>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> enum at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum


_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum