Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

Rik Ribbers <> Fri, 04 December 2015 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A4D1B30B4 for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 04:26:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.084
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1hO6io6kHeY7 for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 04:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 474851B3112 for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 04:22:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt;; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:x-mailer:x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype:x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader:x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version; bh=aKz9J2Q3HGadUI4j/OPT4w9kvrW3S/SkAwC+10TJRL0=; b=y0jREeiDoD6kQRNNncYQKNuK1yXjh/52ulb9RXVSJvK44Fco+vZthqBw7ceOxJcJB4ov7ip6hniPjoofiiL5Ed0c3irxz/MHd7B1Ph+f4pbE4u3RH6DIGVlyaF3cyQV7Tbi01jPnJVwr/JkeWtRYPxxl6Iu3400hDnJItw+aLBoyiT+YUscc+evYihzl5bPHuB/S1r542XACjGXpaqzB1vExchyiQgV9bVLaRt6J8lqhAiVDoZ+X9gbncKWq4z46QnkXC6hDyCslZYKAqt5CXGVEwWB3PSaJAsQzGhyUoxaYsXWeQpKO1myUjvsiqQFt3lTpzNA9hYyJotXZziTbiw==
Received: from ka-mbx02.SIDN.local ([]) by with ESMTP id tB4CMuZI011135-tB4CMuZK011135 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:22:56 +0100
Received: from ka-mbx02.SIDN.local ( by ka-mbx02.SIDN.local ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:22:57 +0100
Received: from ka-mbx02.SIDN.local ([fe80::9855:369a:1ca4:6549]) by ka-mbx02.SIDN.local ([fe80::9855:369a:1ca4:6549%13]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:22:57 +0100
From: Rik Ribbers <>
To: Antoin Verschuren <>, eppext <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
Thread-Index: AQHRLoRM24h2/2q+I0mAWPlnN+30bJ66rzQA
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:22:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AA047BA5-37C0-470B-9E25-788066A2C244"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:26:56 -0000


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.

> -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.

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?