IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Tue, 08 December 2015 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <JGould@verisign.com>
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 C77CD1B2FD5 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:36:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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 7r0GDCgYjFHY for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x263.google.com (mail-oi0-x263.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::263]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BFFF1A9301 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oibl204 with SMTP id l204so1681513oib.3 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:36:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=verisign-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :content-type:mime-version; bh=vNTiisjDGfmfvWf/0zCXoIVo9qw7MaRG1hKHxhD7bzE=; b=JwKvKLySRrQChNzApsdlI+z9W1OiEokM0q+R6XHDAzBrshvgX5VHJfXxC+cTO+6g1b 4heHfCYa75g0hNYWgZWAPxBiSueEYFcEX/wJszT2qQrrib/2GGvgTf55x7SF5U5wh7kk zzYcoi89sq037C89VdmqN9W+fSbFbloLWgw8Y3z5hixCLfKcKmPwnGCMDnB0NpTq88dE vHBm8JCFFK2PRJAh4sSWhtOVbbWzuq/pwtZHSKn6OLDmKfiuFG+03rJ0x1zCnj7ghF1L TPRzAWy4oRubb/YxbfbsEh8JWs74/Zbz4/evMxjpskyKPXTKo5OstgSNp8oW7LTU6XM3 Kw7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=vNTiisjDGfmfvWf/0zCXoIVo9qw7MaRG1hKHxhD7bzE=; b=HN9/7V3dfRSMkZj1FjiAkvN85hjb1trIFprUILURTJLy1/mVw4Md0FcpgWWswBU5gz 9DK9JpEVHBcL70+GZxOypk5BrbvM8iyWm5IbUKgXPMvSv9g1j3KuyCJhsaWO1xigPgj4 KHexj47tfiDamVRF7QZd++ZDEKY0rWVUqiwEvo7mUffO5Ob0Bg+4px6T1EGo6QRFDI25 cwDRRmomawCuFP0Gpqftv5x8pVJPeNgKeB6wPeRQsAOjTJX9pK00sAqgPaNgmZEAFY2b L97MZbzZ1jtma6WcVgrTd9xG0V4wFJxlQWa9KLtWzLh2/CWXSKJY5VxRQXLBv4h/l9/u QOSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkloHb2d2WTxy60fUUc6TCMDgKcB61iwTE+T80GziWK37h+HoZxIQFnu4dpUyaW6yVFxtxUVhPJviSs1kHIGENbmgu6LHZSijx/PWQy5d76L57DtH0=
X-Received: by 10.55.80.194 with SMTP id e185mr662466qkb.68.1449592578388; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:36:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id y135sm555337qky.9.2015.12.08.08.36.18 (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:36:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB8GaGAw009729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:36:17 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:36:14 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Declan Ma <madi@zdns.cn>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
Thread-Index: AQHRLoRHCbKgve9FKUykWj9dwYlRfp6/N66AgAJkbICAAAfIAA==
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D459E0AD-006E-4C64-AC18-F33F6CB0C12D@verisign.com>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl> <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn> <D10C1316-9C6A-4477-B7E3-6AC894B07329@zdns.cn>
In-Reply-To: <D10C1316-9C6A-4477-B7E3-6AC894B07329@zdns.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_D459E0AD006E4C64AC18F33F6CB0C12Dverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/9Q_-xv9Wvm5Mdx3BiQoJfy5QeGc>
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:36:22 -0000

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

Thanks,


—


JG


[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Declan Ma <madi@zdns.cn<mailto:madi@zdns.cn>> wrote:



在 2015年12月7日，11:36，Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn<mailto: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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email