On 19 jun 2013, at 18:01, Edward Lewis <ed(_dot_)lewis(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz>
wrote:
Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for the IETF
to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products. Or realize that the
"waterfall model" that seems to be in place is no longer appropriate. (As if
you've never heard that before!) The world changes (the new majority) but
the IETF acts as if "once it's an RFC it is done."
This is an example of an ICANN initiated piece of work that barely got into
the IETF, the IETF completed it in a way that has benefit beyond ICANN
(meaning many ccTLDs have adopted it on their own accord), but the IETF
didn't make it easy and didn't help the deployment. I hope the latter phase
isn't repeated with the WEIRDS WG and RDAP.
To complete the story for newcomers...I did bring up EPP just because when EPP
was discussed in IETF, I was the responsible Area Director. So I am (a)
definitely aware of the problem, and (b) still annoyed over the result.
If I could travel back in time and try again...
Anyway....
So, the example was very explicitly chosen so that my story was not to blame
any individuals, but the situation which I am both part of an frustrated of.
Patrik