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

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Hi Bernie,

Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> 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?

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.

> 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.

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