Re: [eppext] revised draft charter - v2

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

The practices of operating a registry have been evolving over the past 15
years.  Getting PROVREG chartered was a challenge back in 2000, as the
IETF felt that EPP wasn't a topic for the organization.  As soon as EPP's
first round of documents were approved, the WG was shutdown and the
PROVREG mail list continued in sort of a vacuum as the industry grew
around EPP, this was the root (or a root) cause of why EPPEXT came about.

I think having a registry-industry focused extensions WG is a good idea.
I'd float the request to pull in documents on data escrow of registry data
as well as documents related to trademark clearing house.  There are
documents related to those two functions already in the IETF floating in
individual submission space.

Two questions that come to mind are: Would creating a
registry-as-a-specific-function WG be something new to the IETF?  (I.e.,
precedent-setting?)  And would this be better placed in O&M?

The former is a question from what I recall was the stumbling block back
in 2000.  As much as I think there is a need for documenting how
registries work - without unifying in any way - so that ideas can be
shared, etc., I hope that the IETF is willing to take this on as a WG.

I'll add - I don't see registries continually evolving over time, past a
point of maturity.  So a WG would have a limited lifetime, not an
on-going, ever-expanding function.

On 8/31/15, 8:57, "EppExt on behalf of Marc Groeneweg"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>+1
>
>I agree to extend the EPPEXT with possible extensions to the RDAP
>protocol. And please do forward the eppext, provreg and weirds mail to a
>new regext list. 
>
>Regards,
>Marc Groeneweg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Rik Ribbers
>Sent: maandag 31 augustus 2015 13:18
>To: 'James Galvin'; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [eppext] revised draft charter - v2
>
>+1 for the charter text
>
>One question. If we are creating aliases for mailingllist should we
>consider the provreg mailing list? Then at least all EPP mailing lists I
>am aware of are relayed to on place.
>
>Gr,
>Rik 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James Galvin
>Sent: vrijdag 28 augustus 2015 23:28
>To: eppext
>Cc: Barry Leiba
>Subject: [eppext] revised draft charter - v2
>
>There were two suggestions on the list for extending the charter.  One
>seemed to suggest being the home for all protocol extensions.  A second
>was to focus on just RDAP and EPP extensions.
>
>I believe the restriction to just RDAP and EPP had more support.  There
>were a few people who suggested they didn't really want to join the two
>protocols but they also said they would not object to joining them.  I
>counted this as support for the merge.
>
>Marc Blanchet proposed a new name of REGistration protocols EXTensions
>(REGEXT).  There were no objections so I adopted it in this revised draft.
>
>Here is a draft for consideration by the working group.  I have not yet
>added milestones, which are necessary before submitting this to the IESG
>for review.  I also have to finish reviewing the discussion for the 3
>documents in WGLC so I can make sure to include them appropriately in
>this charter.
>
>Please comment on this charter and suggest milestones for inclusion by
>Friday, 4 September 2015.
>
>Jim
>_______________________________________________
>EppExt mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>
>_______________________________________________
>EppExt mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext