Pointers to working groups (was re: Regestry Identifiers)

[David Collier-Brown <davecb@Canada.Sun.COM>]

Dave Crocker wrote (in reply to Rick Wesson):
|  This sounds like an entirely reasonable approach, to me.  It has
| the benefit of not requiring the IAHC to get into the middle of it
| but, instead, let the usual standards process develop and mandate it. 
| An  effort like the IAHC can then get by with "implement and conform
| to all relevant Internet standards" languge and be done with it.

| My very strong personal opinion (strongly personal, strong opinion)
| is that all DNS-related technical matters -- defining technologies
| such as protocols and formats -- MUST be pursued ONLY through the
| IETF.
|         Thanks for raising this.
| d/

  I'd like to echo that: having analyzed part of the problem to
a moderate level, I'm of the opinion that
	1) there are two RFCs there, plus an amending RFC or two,
	   which is not an inconsiderable amount of work, and
	2) their content is essentially technical, although
	   part of their substance needs to be a statement
	   of non-technical constraints they must work under.
  These deserve the attention of a normal working group.

  Having said that, I would speculate that the IAHC might wish
to produce a non-exhaustive list of subjects that registries
would need to be aware of and of the working groups actually
addressing these areas.
  Right now, we don't have any relevant Internet standards,
so I'd prefer to see a pointer to the process appearing as a
placeholder (:-))

--dave c-b, a private person, in this case trying to think like
	a nascent registry.
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb