IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com> Fri, 04 December 2015 14:05 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 D5CF81A86FF for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:05:38 -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 5w-Yeuxrzhvp for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x262.google.com (mail-oi0-x262.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::262]) (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 8A0561A870B for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oiww189 with SMTP id w189so7222571oiw.2 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 06:05:36 -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=3HhPkORsMMh18lMLk/4JW703XHPxQYR6DKlyMI4B3MI=; b=1HWxhjANCj7Plh7XER2OOu5FF/PWTef2j8pBYWdM9pcHDHXtFaH37UUUBn0CPH93LP XyX/HA9bZEP8UeagzCPXN2AiHS4wo1BkvcsoZlYaB8fVUQ9UX/uVjdJuVHGEVZ1bPy5v u73ogHUtm0yz2Pk9ZKSiioeLYbgKt1zp7OwTjHPD7e0Riem3sWueWEr7oqSdq4sWjrhu sIhWwd0b7W0WSplxS3AEoPRjSL2WLV34mv4cUokx2CJLO9mSTTdikPHclnjbWOr8nYup 88hGr5mT+cqZs6AmI1eaNNVVg9R/HhQALCmroslG8vdefJS16yknuYCMEavwlvUT7bQS 0/Zw==
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=3HhPkORsMMh18lMLk/4JW703XHPxQYR6DKlyMI4B3MI=; b=R849Wpw+JJb449Tw+4qgO0KQE/bz4p/iC4Nvd52nRNxwQODCVJm4Hblf5GOrRotyi/ izvw5Ol/NMeZiqcgv+iBpJdPM/v6/l7nQDxo9DFG8mUeYrmV8yt2BG14pWv6jSM3M+Sn gvQ91civiU+umV0BB5d/i7Ft0sKQhrbu3FbUQ1dJfK9HvWg1NzaIMYBZ2SM22A1fPCLT 57GdTgMrPElxKn9IFOHVhwbzTHsEU7dEjd5LhaCHrlG/MUm2MqVVKYU3Ta3vOPGEvFl9 ub83+1dXHrBBJDd95OYe+P0dVwwgzle4LU180RujtnuAGQIMQCrSqaTrvbn4DkpJ1E2b xC+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOVkr1OLl6L+P2hh4U3BaO5b1qcRgHVIvuMlwX0a97EJ0rVAuiivw2z4gS3ELUR5LqQs/pgcWo5v6Ggd+ee1CKL9G0OA==
X-Received: by 10.55.79.207 with SMTP id d198mr17777310qkb.49.1449237935402; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 06:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id v137sm1892913qka.13.2015.12.04.06.05.35 (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2015 06:05:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB4E5YIM016056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:05:34 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:05:34 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>
To: Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
Thread-Index: AQHRLoRHCbKgve9FKUykWj9dwYlRfp67E8yAgAAcqYA=
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 14:05:33 +0000
Message-ID: <54340569-40D3-49F1-A3A0-8ABAA0FE2FEB@verisign.com>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl> <306B0937-894B-44FB-896E-0C5110673879@sidn.nl>
In-Reply-To: <306B0937-894B-44FB-896E-0C5110673879@sidn.nl>
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_5434056940D349F1A3A08ABAA0FE2FEBverisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/B57n-tR2ESxaF_4oZjMu8Y1ZL2Q>
Cc: Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>, eppext <eppext@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 14:05:39 -0000

Rik,

My clarification is provided below.


—


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 4, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers@sidn.nl<mailto:rik.ribbers@sidn.nl>> wrote:

All,

General feedback: I don’t have a very strong opinion about priorities and order. If a document is ready for submission let’s just submit it and move on.

Group 1

-epp-rdap mapping (draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping)
-verification code (draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode)
-nv mapping (draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping)(Remains as Informational, but reviewed by WG)


I  have a question about the verification drafts. During the Yokohama meeting someone (James Gould?) stated that the verification drafts should have the highest priority over others and somehow they ended up in group 1. What I missed is the reasoning why. There are other drafts that are longer part of this working group and deserve higher priority in my opinion (like resellers and change poll en the fees drafts). Can somebody explain the reasoning why these are (so) important.


I stated that of the drafts on the list I viewed the verification drafts as my highest priority, but I’ll leave it up to the WG to decide the priority order.  The reason for this is not based on the age of the drafts, but based on a growing need for the registry community to be capable of applying locality based verification policies.  draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode defines the general framework that is applicable across any locality and draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping provides a concrete interface for the Chinese verification policy that follows draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode.  This is an important topic ripe for the WG to take up.

-Relay (no draft yet, split from keyrelay)


There is no document so there is no need to add it to the milestones. The charter is explicit enough to add any document if the WG thinks it is of value. Personally I don’t see this document happening very soon.

Furthermore
Will there be an individual call-for-adoption per document or if the document is on the charter it is adopted?
In the last case. How are we going to make sure the documents get enough review before submission?
In the first case. Can we explicitly ask for reviewers and people willing to work on the document during the adoption?

Gr,
Rik





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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email