Re: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter

Gustavo Lozano <> Tue, 26 January 2016 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77591A9126 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sJwJuCnEn3Yq for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01CEC1A9124 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:46:45 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:46:45 -0800
From: Gustavo Lozano <>
To: James Galvin <>, Rik Ribbers <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter
Thread-Index: AQHRWGGFrHSHcZF6qkywVfX9PxVNlQ==
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:46:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3536646398_2598501"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: eppext <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:46:49 -0000

Jim, all,

I think that we should add
draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date to the milestones in
March 2016.

In the case of gTLDs, the draft thick Whois policy requires registries to
show the reseller and registrar expiration date in the RDDS (e.g. Whois,
RDAP) output. The drafts: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller* and
draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date, provide a mechanism to
transmit the reseller and registrar expiration date in the
registry-registrar channel, therefore I think that they should go
together. RDAP supports publishing the information (reseller and registrar
expiration date), and registries/registrars should benefit if there is a
mechanism agreed by the community to transmit the information in EPP.

There is another draft (draft-lozano-rdap-nameservers-sharing-name) that I
would like to add the milestones, as this draft is trying to solve an
issue discovered when drafting the RDAP profile, it would be beneficial
for the implementation plan of the draft thick whois policy / RDAP profile
to have it in the October 2016 set.


On 1/26/16, 06:55, "EppExt on behalf of James Galvin"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>On 26 Jan 2016, at 3:00, Rik Ribbers wrote:
>> However as time has passed a new draft has
>> surfaced(draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date)  Should
>> we add this to the milestone list or not?
>> I prefer not to add them and do a call for adoption when we finally
>> have the new charter in place (as we can do this based on our new
>> charter).
>Thanks for your question!
>We decided not to add anything that has not already been discussed for
>just this reason.  The milestones also set the priority for our tasks.
>We can always change this but I think it¹s more prudent to get a
>baseline established and then change as we go when needed.
>Of course, if folks prefer a different path please do speak up.
>> One side question:
>> Will we alias the mailinglists (eppext, provreg weirds) into a new one
>> as discussed here:
>> Shouldn¹t this be in the charter somewhere or is this just something
>> operational when the new charter is approved? Again I hope for the
>> last as I do not want to delay the rechartering process.
>I don¹t know about provreg but for eppext and weirds it is an
>operational issue and it will just happen.  I haven¹t asked about the
>details but I presume that subscribers from both will be added to the
>new list.  We¹ll get the specifics and let folks know.
>EppExt mailing list