[eppext] charter suggestion

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Mon, 09 November 2015 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F831B7D4D for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 06:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyWEUUkNGWoy for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 06:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F5C1B7D4A for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 06:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.109] (modemcable093.65-160-184.mc.videotron.ca [184.160.65.93]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA090403D3 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:36:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: eppext <eppext@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 09:36:07 -0500
Message-ID: <C1DEACAF-E7AD-45D9-AE1C-ECD3745D5F3D@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_102722C5-39EB-47D0-B4AC-C01E5E058ECE_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/-Ef1Pdi-9uFIZC7yTAYDeIxCZV0>
Subject: [eppext] charter suggestion
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 14:36:10 -0000

Hello,
  there was some consensus on not to broader the scope of the charter to 
include « unclear » protocols. May I suggest the following 
amendment, which may accomplish both purposes: - make sure we are not 
rejecting an important issue currently on the market, - do not increase 
the scope too much. The following amendment is the following:

- The working group will also identify the requirements for a 
registration protocol where a third-party DNS provider is involved. 
These requirements will be documented in an Informational RFC.

The goal here is to have clear requirements identified. If the end 
recommendation is a protocol, then it would require to modify the 
charter to handle that protocol, which is a good protection against the 
concern people have. At the same time, we will have made progress on 
this issue.

What do people think?

Regards, Marc.