Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"xiejiagui@teleinfo.cn" <xiejiagui@teleinfo.cn> Wed, 09 December 2015 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejiagui@teleinfo.cn>
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 7AB0A1A8791 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:27:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.167
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732] autolearn=no
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 E-ocS4TJh4wH for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caict.ac.cn (mail.tenaa.com.cn [219.239.97.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE72B1A8799 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kevin (unknown [10.7.18.135]) by app3 (Coremail) with SMTP id GBADCgA3C0qKkWdW7FYYAA--.1084S2; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:27:23 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:27:24 +0800
From: "xiejiagui@teleinfo.cn" <xiejiagui@teleinfo.cn>
To: =?utf-8?B?R291bGQsIEphbWVz?= <JGould@verisign.com>, "Antoin Verschuren" <ietf@antoin.nl>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl>, <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>, <3DD8E76A-AEC8-4CB2-9886-7454B796BB4F@antoin.nl>, <9A36ACCF-844F-4FE1-801B-5C4F013F71F3@verisign.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 5B1A06ED-350A-42CD-BAEA-626B07EA970D
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 21[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2015120910272437510925@teleinfo.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_001_NextPart724107575613_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: GBADCgA3C0qKkWdW7FYYAA--.1084S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxCr4fuF47uF18JrW5ZryfXrb_yoWrWry5pa 1jqry3Wa95JrsFk3s2yw1Iqr4Fy34Sq3ykAF15J3y8A3y3JF1Fqw4qka15ZFyUCF1ft3WY qF4UK343XFsYv3DanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU9mb7Iv0xC_KF4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_JFI_Gr1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21le4C267I2x7xF 54xIwI1l5I8CrVCF0I0E4I0vr24lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_JrI_JrylYx0Ex4A2jsIE14 v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvY0x0EwIxGrwACjcxG0xvY0x0E wIxGrVCF72vEw4AK0wACY4xI67k04243AVAKzVAKj4xxMxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s 026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_ JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14 v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xva j40_Zr0_Wr1UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr 0_Gr1UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jeksgUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: x0lhyxpdjxxq5whovxxqirhubq/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/RBGT1vqcl9r5igueQQjfpcgxZmg>
Cc: 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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 02:27:40 -0000

Dear Colleagues,

I agree with James's proposal. 

Regards,
Jiagui Xie

Teleinfo

From: Gould, James
Date: 2015-12-08 23:47
To: Antoin Verschuren
CC: eppext
Subject: Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
Antoin,  

My feedback is below.

—

JG




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com 

On Dec 8, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>; wrote:

Op 7 dec. 2015, om 04:36 heeft Linlin Zhou <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>; het volgende geschreven:

I agree that the WG needs a milestone and schedule, since we do not have so
much time to work on these existing documents in parallel. In my opinion,
the logical working process of a draft is that first calling for WG
adoption, approved by WG (discussed and supported on the mailing list or at
the f2f meeting), included in the milestone, etc.. I believe that all the
document should follow the clear working path. If a document has opposed
comments, whether or not we should discuss the technical stuff first and
pend the document included in the charter. The nv draft as a single
informational document, which is related to some Chinese local policies, I
still do not see a clarified consensus on it. Shall we discuss if the
document is qualified to be a WG document?

OK, so I already heard we want to remove the relay draft from the list of milestones.
That leaves us with a list of 9 documents for WG adoption.
You specifically want to hear a voice of adoption for the informational nv-mapping draft.
What does the WG think of this document?
Should we adopt it now, or remove it from the list of milestones and possibly add it later as a WG item?

For the priority issue, I think the document with most discussion and
support should be listed in the first priority. The verification drafts were
proposed before last IETF, there's still no thorough discussion about them
on the mailing list. It is somewhat a hurry to complete 3 drafts WGLC in a
period of time less than one month. Moreover, most of the WG members will
have a Christmas holiday, I guess. Though we don't have such a long holiday
in China :)

So what do you propose here?
Should we prioritize the reseller draft since it had more review over the verification draft(s)?
So put reseller in group 1 and verification in group 2?
What does te WG think of this proposal?


Your proposal looks reasonable; although I recommend moving fees up to Group 1, moving the verification code and nv mapping drafts to group 2, and moving the allocation token and change poll drafts to group 3.  If there was bandwidth to move reseller up to Group 1 and change poll up to Group 2, that works for me.  There may be one small overlap between verification and reseller that we may want to consider.  My proposed groupings are below. 

Group 1

-epp-rdap mapping (draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping)
-fees (draft-brown-epp-fees)

Group 2

-reseller (draft-zhou-eppext-reseller and draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-mapping)
-verification (draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode and draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping)

Group 3

-change poll (draft-gould-change-poll)
-allocation token (draft-gould-allocation-token)
-bundling (draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration)

Group 4

-IDN Table Mapping (draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap and draft-gould-idn-table and draft-wilcox-cira-idn-eppext)
-Relay (no draft yet, split from keyrelay)
  



Again, I feel obliged to discuss more about the technical issues on existing
drafts. Let's move this recharter work and take action on drafts as soon as
possible.

I also want to speed up the technical discussion as we have enough work to do.
So let’s get this charter discussion out of our way and create a list of milestones so we know what work lies ahead.

Regards,

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392
_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
EppExt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext