IETF Logo Mail Archive

[eppext] Fwd: rechartering

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Tue, 28 July 2015 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 A875F1A8AB3 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 HNTc8gUvdtlg for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (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 6253A1A8F36 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so160437519wib.1 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=UsBhyQj8hamJauYaGwp07OzAGV+CpdOsdjNw8VipMZ8=; b=SsvCb5SgQF1moKA55oAOTJk49Oe5T7hAS9AQEjGXIX/mmZ9gYxc7kh6H0L1SiyRnWW GeqcCoeD5cmgtOiYvOsNSrTHoStUlFH/Oj7NNSX+/gTd+vzK3gQd/KseFfP9T8iyxPL8 u7Bz6uh+cxkL62fzVo+7no3EKI66lKIr++4boc3JoFDG+54JIvTiEAU4kUuMKr85+nQ6 kWqOr5eR3NrM+FYt8O48IWzMXgWf65u2Sr/yJgYeqCZuf2vyswO/RiMRT8/tPLAL9cU6 256ydGVGaos92ESA3kEV7ir5HYkerzax/Xiw9V4XxDRfh9+mDJjWMIlXUJ5KTxKwd5GE cWAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHr+azv1+XPRq+RUOQMi8Mi4PvyuqqaZOmezsnsxV2wdA++yGUU9o4g1ngg6NeS3JH9D0E
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.104.8 with SMTP id ga8mr35024480wib.5.1438089595139; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.249.99 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:500:4:15:2081:b835:d5d5:308]
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRdBDKb8NF+d2COxTVCbx7MMtV4dsTRDSqBotq6XroHxBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAQiQRdBDKb8NF+d2COxTVCbx7MMtV4dsTRDSqBotq6XroHxBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:19:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRd=65H=oTGFEz5ew_+cbKiKZo+xu5Ypb+cf89KtrPK0Pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
To: "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>, eppext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04427130794cb1051bef53d9
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/T5bL1EnASv0xGfHdlDWeDFSrB5c>
Subject: [eppext] Fwd: rechartering
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:19:59 -0000

Since there has been no negative feedback, I'm cross-posting this to WEIRDS
to see what people over there think.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Subject: rechartering
To: eppext@ietf.org


All,

I'd like to offer another idea for the rechartering of this working group.
Instead of focusing exclusively on EPP extensions, would it be better if we
rechartered to focus on protocol issues of Internet registries... more
specifically EPP and RDAP.

Given that the constituencies for both have considerable overlap, and there
is already at least one draft covering the mapping between EPP and RDAP and
that there will likely be future drafts where the inputs of EPP and the
outputs of RDAP are correlated, this seems like an easier way forward.

I spoke privately with Scott, Barry, and Pete (the AD behind the chartering
of both EPPEXT and WEIRDS) just to see if I wasn't barking madd, and they
each thought it makes sense.

What are your thoughts and comments about such an approach?

-andy

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email