On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant in ICANN >> (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more" technical standards where >> developed in IETF, and moved forward along standards track, that ICANN can reference. > > As a concrete example, the EPP systems used in production by TLD > registries use extensions that are documented only in I-Ds, often > expired I-Ds, or in dusty I-D like web documents. If you look at the > applications for new TLDs on the ICANN web site at > https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus you > will find that nearly all of them plan to use EPP extensions not > described in an RFC. Most of these extensions should be utterly > uncontroversial, e.g., one to synchronize renewal dates among multiple > domains, or another to tell a client that its credit balance has > dropped below a threshold. > > Assuming we care about stability and interoperability, wouldn't it > make sense for the IETF to spin up a WG, collect these drafts, clean > up the language, make sure they agree with the widely implemented > reality, and publish them? I realize you were asking a larger question, but.. If we do, I volunteer to help collect, review, clean up, check and push them along. W > > R's, > John > -- "Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks, it takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water." -- Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations.