Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

Declan Ma <madi@zdns.cn> Wed, 09 December 2015 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <madi@zdns.cn>
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 F1DD01A92FD for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 06:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3cCN73EGYBxW for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 06:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zdns.cn (smtp.knet.cn [202.173.10.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AFE01AC3CC for <eppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 06:58:46 -0800 (PST)
X-TM-DID: 6b79fb6751f07ecc6126b33845b3f2f3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Declan Ma <madi@zdns.cn>
In-Reply-To: <D459E0AD-006E-4C64-AC18-F33F6CB0C12D@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:57:30 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD620164-DD96-46DD-83B1-3F0368F06DA0@zdns.cn>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl> <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn> <D10C1316-9C6A-4477-B7E3-6AC894B07329@zdns.cn> <D459E0AD-006E-4C64-AC18-F33F6CB0C12D@verisign.com>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/1nAmVm5H8fVUYmsiuaBcy0V_gAA>
Cc: Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>, eppext <eppext@ietf.org>, Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:58:50 -0000

> 在 2015年12月9日,00:36,Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> 写道:
> 
> The proposal is to move draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode as a standards track WG document to define the locality verification framework, and to include draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping as a concrete informational draft applicable to China.  This way the framework can be discussed along with a concrete implementation of the framework.  

I think the framework offered by your draft is brilliant and is shedding lights on the R&D work in my team. I support it adopted as WG item.

Besides, many registry operators in China, enlightened by your draft, are working on their implementations of verification mechanisms.


> Do you have feedback on the contents of draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping?


I also appreciate the innovation of nv draft.

Granted, my concern is that using EPP to transport verification materials, pictures for instance, changes the light-weight EPP operation practice. 

Di,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —
> 
> JG
> 
> 
> <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png>
> 
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com
> 
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 
> VerisignInc.com
> 
>> On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Declan Ma <madi@zdns.cn> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 在 2015年12月7日,11:36,Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> 写道:
>>> 
>>> Dear chair,
>>> Thanks for your work to propose the discussion.
>>> 
>>> I agree that the WG needs a milestone and schedule, since we do not have so
>>> much time to work on these existing documents in parallel. In my opinion,
>>> the logical working process of a draft is that first calling for WG
>>> adoption, approved by WG (discussed and supported on the mailing list or at
>>> the f2f meeting), included in the milestone, etc.. I believe that all the
>>> document should follow the clear working path. If a document has opposed
>>> comments, whether or not we should discuss the technical stuff first and
>>> pend the document included in the charter. The nv draft as a single
>>> informational document, which is related to some Chinese local policies, I
>>> still do not see a clarified consensus on it. Shall we discuss if the
>>> document is qualified to be a WG document?
>> 
>> 
>> Linlin,
>> 
>> I quite agree with you, speaking as a technical guy from Chinese DNS industry.
>> 
>> Since the nv draft bears relevances to the local policies in China and is intended to be Informational, thorough discussions are indispensable to see whether it is qualified to be a WG item.
>> 
>> It’s unwise to jump into the decision of putting nv draft in milestone and to-do list.
>> 
>> 
>> Di Ma
>> 
>> ZDNS
>> 
>> http://en.zdns.cn
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
>> EppExt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext