Re: [eppext] moving documents along

[Ulrich Wisser <[e-mail]>]

Hi  James!

Besides the old documents I would like to see us discuss if we want to
adopt new ones / recharter.

draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap-02 is not very controversial except that we need
to defines the table names. Otherwise it doesn't help much.

draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-02 and draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-00 seem
technically sound so no objections there.

/Ulrich


2015-01-21 16:39 GMT+01:00 James Galvin <[e-mail]>:

> Speaking as Chair, I want to bring folks up to date on where I believe we
> are.  Please do speak up if you disagree or have any corrections.
>
> We have 5 documents in our working group.
>
>
> 1. draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10 Extension Registry for the Extensible
> Provisioning Protocol
>
> If you've been tracking the status updates from the RFC Editor on the list
> then you know this document is close to publication as an RFC. Scott
> Hollenbeck has been doing his part to move this along.  There is no action
> for the working group at this time.
>
>
> 2. draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap-02 Internationalized Domain Name Mapping
> Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>
> There has been very little discussion on the mailing list about this
> document.  Andrew Sullivan posted some extensive comments to which there
> has been limited response.
>
> It's tough to declare consensus with so little discussion.  It would be
> helpful if folks would review the document and comments and post at least a
> "no objection".
>
>
> 3. draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-01         Relay Extension for the
> Extensible Provisioning Protocol
>
> There has been lively discussion here and we appear to have a difference
> of opinion on a technical point.  We very much need to hear from other
> folks.  Please review the thread and let everyone know what you think.
>
>
> 4. draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-02 Launch Phase Mapping for the
> Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>
> I believe we're close to consensus on this document.  There's been some
> discussion but nothing too contentious as far as I can see.  I'm expecting
> Jim Gould to submit a revised document in the not too distant future and
> we'll review where we are at that time.
>
>
> 5. draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-00 Mark and Signed Mark Objects Mapping
>
> This document has expired and is waiting for the author to resubmit. There
> was one change proposed on the mailing list last year that needs to be
> incorporated in the revision.
>
> At one time there was concern about the relationship between this document
> and the launchphase document but I don't believe that concern exists any
> more.
>
> I suppose it's fair to ask if the working group is still interested in
> publishing this document.  If so, I'll press Gustavo to submit a revised
> document and we can review where we are at that time.
>
>
> Comments and corrections are welcome!
>
> Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>