Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94

"Gould, James" <> Thu, 05 November 2015 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EA91B2FB7 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:33:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQ3FALIwq27c for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 042211B2F50 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oies6 with SMTP id s6so3822036oie.1 for <>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=f7o6dAMDrIjHebY36FPtKQwbcDxC5fufp0/1qW8qKOU=; b=T1a2A2nr6GvDSKqQierw1C9IDhInB9LiknGhr91UzFhAmT+9nf0LlBXo5S04WkppGv sHzanLc7A/koYghZRYi4t9ow/VD5PM9vhZYe/eEhTYlzz2xLiqZlnNfLfY3HqpgC7wjO EvWtcbkoKqAwe48HiEnZU5ChZ0U2Rn/iQ6tf8aLLFG2slEJwMS3yE3CWi18Uy6Tpwajg yd+beVUlb0kI6el1bWuHXl4rjc4ItlZS9Tm6hShkKb9OtzvmVXfpuRkCh7TrasA3BmXY B01rl5s+93L/zrL5BTX0EUXRerEuLBg0Y2A8cLkJoHhDBV4toUX4/5bxNotgaktQw7QI 5LRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8uqS4b7+UuRTm8iu7t8hXz18HPcOAUiW0XpOJ6k250kQG0oQvq1UBYWhKfZ7R3tRt5/Ny96J+MilyHxD6sRlSeKzlqA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b207mr7796375vka.69.1446737411849; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id g20sm52292vkc.8.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexcas01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tA5FU8A8013538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:30:08 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:30:07 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Linlin Zhou <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
Thread-Index: AQHRF6m9eK/y8o0l60m7mZABbgQMIp6N3xmAgAADFwA=
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 15:30:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_425852A8E2584660BB6D6D78A2CD1D27verisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Rik Ribbers <>, Ulrich Wisser <>, Jiagui Xie <>, eppext <>, Declan Ma <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 15:33:35 -0000

I recall a vote around inclusion of informational drafts in general but I don’t remember a vote around inclusion of the nv draft itself.  It would be interesting to here from others on the list whether they support or don’t support inclusion of the nv draft based on what was discussed at the meeting and what has been discussed on this thread thus far.  I obviously feel that it is an important draft that deserves adoption by the working group.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Linlin Zhou <<>> wrote:

Dear WG,

I see your point. I am a horrible jabber scribe….I missed that remark by Jim Galvin completely.

@Chairs: Can you make a clear statement on the list to either confirm or decline my interpretation about the verification drafts being adopted or not.

Same question to chairs. Could you please confirm on the mailing list again whether nv draft is included in WG document?
I recalled my memory that several people have comments to express concerns on nv draft and it seems not be fully supported to be adopted. But it appeared in the milestone. It confused me a lot. Thanks.

On 05 Nov 2015, at 20:52, xiejiagui@teleinfo.cnwrote<mailto:xiejiagui@teleinfo.cnwrote>:

Hello Rik,
Let me post the messages from the Jabber:

Jim Galvin(JimG?) has confirmed  this .

We do think it's useful to discuss this draft in the WG, and any comments about this draft are welcome.

EppExt mailing list<>