Re: [eppext] final charter description

[James Galvin <[e-mail]>]

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 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext |
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         EppExt mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>