--On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 19:43 +0000 John Levine
<johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
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
..
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 hate to put a damper on this sudden enthusiasm, but we
presumably also care about issues of change control and
adoption. It seems to me that we could reasonably do two
things:
(1) Try to do what you suggest but with the understanding that
those who haven't come to us and said "standardize this" may
still not come... and may not consider that they have any
interest or obligation to conform, long-term, to whatever we
come up with. I think that gets us Informational documents that
are basically a cleaned-up version of the I-Ds.
(2) At least partially follow the lead of Joe Abley's comment.
Go to ICANN, suggest that having these commitments in the new
gTLD process depend on I-Ds that are not supposed to be
referenced normatively and might change at any time is not in
the best interest of anyone, especially the best interest of
Internet stabiiity, usability, and interoperability. See if we
can persuade them to initiate a policy development process that
would require adherence to whatever consensus standards are
developed in this area. Then, per Joe's comment, let their
staff poll the various actors to find out what they are doing,
be sure that the various implementations are at least intended
to be consistent and get that documented. Then we work with
them to get the I-Ds updated and to work a process that includes
reviews from those who are actually using and depending on the
specs.
Seems to me that would both minimize IETF workload and get us a
higher quality and better-vetted set of specs for which there
was actually a committed audience.
john