Re: [eppext] rechartering

On 29 Jul 2015, at 7:33, Andrew Newton wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
…

>> At the end of the day, I think what could be used as a criteria is:
>> will this kind of merge in topics foster more work and feedback, and
>> hence going forward faster, or will it make no change?
>>
>
> I agree, that's an important question to ask. If the additional topic 
> is
> too large for this working group, that would be a bad thing. But to 
> date,
> EPPEXT has not exactly been high volume. That being said, we also 
> wouldn't
> want to derail the backlog of EPP extension work with new RDAP work 
> items.
> Therefore the proposed charter text states that the initial focus will 
> be
> EPP work.

I disagree with putting a priority in the (new) charter. I think this is 
just a triage function that can be done by the chairs, depending on 
which topic needs more priority. We may end up having epp-ext-1 and 
rdap-ext-4 be higher priorities than epp-ext-2.  Again, just a chair+wg 
triage function to me.

I also think that the level of work is not too heavy and can easily be 
handled in a single working group.

Here is a proposal for the working group name: regext  (REGistration 
protocols EXTensions)

Regards, Marc.

>
> -andy
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext