Re: [eppext] final charter description

James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:55 UTC

Return-Path: <galvin@elistx.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 1F5041B3601 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:55:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cxqO01wZLuQb for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (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 5EB151A8844 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgad10 with SMTP id d10so55736131qga.3 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:55:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=elistx_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HeobbPSLcJQla5WyM3CksRMK0+VCk3FFT3c0Bt5H0Io=; b=ZtXZpbVBm/7Er8Bbyq8hZppfYQCiZYe8KmT0gwITYBVBstiqa/bnqCHR92PO1Ouk7Z JYRDvB4l/ipx4OuEf4Ob3govK1knjKU+RgZ1oVrC9XNAAchxNb2F/u5h83xhb7/OOJkV cGjews1Sk2Q64PDriW48qXnM5M6S59VT0JKCwFtykeHCs/t615O0TxWkr9X/2o/EY36k gabr6vFoHUHOhFmUWI8UYCo1S0TeD7KxeORcy6qDiyLoGrLjn4FAe/fss3LGTRdq5ye+ Od3hVhSj511I7c0K6KpjTuEisD5Lv8QB1DBjbuuP8Sp/7ydemfJtY8FxpV5nCp/41CiI Nc+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HeobbPSLcJQla5WyM3CksRMK0+VCk3FFT3c0Bt5H0Io=; b=MykitNE0eZHZghXCBVneaS3x7aX5ppzWo8NZoAecjoGaMZLTPOFpHWGX4tNED8NA4K /PYDoPW0kmMdDNmW2smFIX4e/2P72kTCX9ofHPJ4ZqOvl5q+6lGmeDe5RA53cLgNIxI+ rIwy3lC5gD8hQkA+HyUhCwu32882bEzuM9ICLIAFcYxMbXslj+sHQKAND3Z0xTO3eJJs TtKYfhRdIWQfxAnVGuHRpGo+RvcRa4dtaX4UJaY4UGwsdt0pPs5oR6avHr/6dTdOzgCc YxEku5P79m2R4EXa36arrakZVq5CbuX6qZ3G/xs1BGvWyBoTTuxdpUxOUtOt18NznzMA +HfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmASyjAl8Qoy5TN7CgCnH3pc6y9rn64IRq1mqKJg+is1HjSNj//mmu91UhT8geQz/j+zIZc
X-Received: by 10.140.135.17 with SMTP id 17mr5267088qhh.3.1446688542526; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:55:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jgalvin-lt.local (c-73-133-108-218.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [73.133.108.218]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a49sm1073097qga.41.2015.11.04.17.55.36 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:55:41 -0800 (PST)
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
References: <563AAC4F.6050907@elistx.com> <A4E1F844-9D5E-43CD-B886-F5CB94809768@viagenie.ca> <1E948341-BA56-498F-8AF9-6382856B8265@viagenie.ca> <563AB498.7050203@elistx.com> <C160E43F-F77B-4DAF-9041-E1E0914D8128@viagenie.ca>
From: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
Message-ID: <563AB732.9050301@elistx.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:56:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C160E43F-F77B-4DAF-9041-E1E0914D8128@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/DhWggX3D_xcJDbYpLl7TcPfFYUw>
Cc: eppext <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] final charter description
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:55:48 -0000


On 11/4/15 8:50 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:44, James Galvin wrote:
>
>     For right now, I would say no. This charter has been agreed to by
>     the working group and is waiting for milestones to move forward.
>
>     Changing the scope would change the charter and I would recommend
>     against this.
>
>     That's a process argument against.
>
>     Separately, I think this topic is different enough from "extensions"
>     that it should itself be separate from this working group. Just my
>     opinion of course. Would like to hear from others.
>
> well, let me rephrase my point, and not concentrating on that specific
> draft. Is the charter strictly scoped to EPP and RDAP protocols (which
> seem to be), or is the scope about registration protocols (in which a
> bit larger scope would enable these initiatives to be in scope). Yes,
> there is danger for too large scope. But I wanted to at least raise the
> awareness of the group before we restrict ourselves to RDAP and EPP.

Thanks for this.

What do others think?

Jim



>
> Marc.
>
>     Jim
>
>     On 11/4/15 8:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>
>         have another comment about charter: should topics like this
>         (draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-00) be in scope of the
>         new wg?
>         if yes, then we may want to make it so.
>
>         Marc.
>
>         On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>
>         few comments on the proposed charter:
>
>         Proposed Charter
>         Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) Working Group
>
>         The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, Standard 69) is the
>         standard domain name provisioning protocol for top-level domain name
>         registries, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>         Numbers (ICANN) requires all new generic top-level domain registries
>         to implement EPP. To avoid many separate EPP extensions that provide
>         the same functions, it's important to coordinate and standardize EPP
>         extensions.
>
>         <MB>I would be more happy to not specifically talk about ICANN
>         requirements for gTLD, but more in general for any registries,
>         including cctlds. I would just remove « and the Internet Corporation
>         … to implement EPP ».
>         </MB>
>
>         The EPP Extensions (EPPEXT) working group completed its first
>         goal of
>         creating an IANA registry of EPP extensions. The registration
>         process
>         of the registry is documented in RFC7451. Extensions may be
>         registered for informational purposes as long as there is a
>         published
>         specification that has been reviewed by a designated expert.
>
>         The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP, RFCs 7480-7484) is the
>         proposed standard for retrieving registration metadata from both
>         domain name and Regional Internet Registries. Some registries are
>         using it now and many more are expected as ICANN moves towards
>         requiring it of generic top-level domain registries.
>
>         <MB>same comment here. More over, timing data such as « using it
>         now » does not survive well over time. Suggested change is to remove
>         the last sentence.
>         </MB>
>
>         To ensure
>         interoperable implementations it's important to coordinate and
>         standardize extensions and profiles to be used by registries.
>
>         Extensions in both cases that seek the status of Internet
>         standard are
>         subject to more thorough review and open discussion within the IETF.
>
>         In addition, commonality may be discovered in related extensions,
>         especially EPP extensions listed on the EPP extension registry, for
>         which it would makes sense to merge them into a single standard
>         extension everybody agrees on.
>
>         The REGEXT working group is the home of the coordination effort for
>         standards track extensions. The selection of extensions for
>         standards
>         track shall incorporate the following guidelines.
>
>         1.
>
>         |Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
>         informational or experimental EPP extensions will follow the
>         expert review process as described in RFC7451 for inclusion in
>         the EPP extensions registry. These documents will not be part of
>         the REGEXT working group work or milestones. The working group
>         may discuss or advise on these documents. |
>
>         2.
>
>         |Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for
>         WG adoption. If accepted by the working group then the
>         development of the standard may proceed. |
>
>         3.
>
>         |The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
>         seeking standards track status. When there are no more proposals
>         for a standards track extension the working group will either
>         close or go dormant according to IETF rules. The mailing list
>         will remain open and available for the use of the expert review
>         process as described in RFC7451. |
>
>         The working group will focus initially on the backlog of EPP
>         extensions.
>
>         <MB>The last paragraphs are really EPP focused. We already know that
>         they are some RDAP extensions that need to be standardized. I think
>         the text should reflect that.
>         </MB>
>
>         On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:09, James Galvin wrote:
>
>         |Included in this message is the final charter description that
>         has been previously agreed to by this working group. What is
>         missing are the milestones. A follow up message will propose a
>         draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group
>         meeting (and here on the list of course). I'm separating these
>         parts so we focus discussion. Jim
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         EppExt mailing list EppExt@ietf.org <mailto:EppExt@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext |
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         EppExt mailing list
>         EppExt@ietf.org <mailto:EppExt@ietf.org> EppExt@ietf.org
>         <mailto:EppExt@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>