Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

> 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