Re: [eppext] final charter description

James Galvin <> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81931B351B for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:31:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OpRO44VfKJHX for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 906B11B35AD for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qkas77 with SMTP id s77so23862794qka.0 for <>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:30:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ykc09/aKhORjXkN3rXbe6ushu/5FXUSMVT5kzj+D4+0=; b=zkWb6vB4TnCmp4n2l0vRjpS/Q7ZW97PCh88HdkVDJZUDLFvG4DB75snZ5fFWfx9bIk HE9xVoyZjKaw6H5cx7rtVbBCpQd2PQXZjQ8aHSQfofH+GtmhGGAKo0j7iaitwQji8EcX QIO2rUZJcWDDyVnbaxeraHkm14AeoOxnWLcF+tjhceb8fnT0XJXMxKU3rwNJy8XPdfEO WWjPedy5pVKRq9acSj4sdNQf5/l2GmEJGtxhxhSkxPqMFAQVEvCMns4pZoEL74U56zb4 yNpvox7sjhGA6ClzoHG6UuaDkXtEpf2bAU0on0DLlBsGoRJPeks0rG6ej1AgxcvTxDd/ MmmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ykc09/aKhORjXkN3rXbe6ushu/5FXUSMVT5kzj+D4+0=; b=Ec4ly5cVMmA6jnM5bjPk9/9dFCNEbtJv6IRlA3m8iP62qxg7bB6DXtqAkykR+Lp5E6 OzQFblAj+OkNMLy+bk4gvFtR7dUGG+KlLPc+Hj1D76kWzWrrnnLc0VQqx9NMp8yY+0/+ Uddp76KhG4I/yiH0G6yX07mvC5Tu6qbWkjA6rABoxbsjuqEqSjRc9fpSz8EUN8YOMqZj rt8F43xg5U29zejd0SdbfxG0v6RKILWh0UkrpOgpk7kRWk7q7eEQb3VmLKUKpplRPenm tSnsoeJt4IMEuG6zvnm92gLNTH53SNb78X7wRudMPm78aGaVIi0NHHdP0Db1b55NSAsF 0dGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmfFcpzu/yfSHmg7zY5mGlQQrc7E6ZfuHkfG668qZPQe3GYH6IhJL1i/B85fFTgyJUyZsDw
X-Received: by with SMTP id d198mr4589855qkb.49.1446687055629; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jgalvin-lt.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j8sm1054101qhc.17.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:30:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Marc Blanchet <>
References: <> <>
From: James Galvin <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:31:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: eppext <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] final charter description
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:31:01 -0000

A fresh look is always interesting.

These changes seem really good to me and I'm inclined to include them as 
an editorial change.  For Marc's last comment I would suggest changing 
"backlog of EPP extensions" to "backlog of EPP and RDAP extensions".

Any objections?


On 11/4/15 8:21 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> few comments on the proposed charter:
> Proposed Charter
> Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) Working Group
> The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, Standard 69) is the
> standard domain name provisioning protocol for top-level domain name
> registries, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN) requires all new generic top-level domain registries
> to implement EPP. To avoid many separate EPP extensions that provide
> the same functions, it's important to coordinate and standardize EPP
> extensions.
> <MB>I would be more happy to not specifically talk about ICANN
> requirements for gTLD, but more in general for any registries, including
> cctlds. I would just remove « and the Internet Corporation … to
> implement EPP ».
> </MB>
> The EPP Extensions (EPPEXT) working group completed its first goal of
> creating an IANA registry of EPP extensions. The registration process
> of the registry is documented in RFC7451. Extensions may be
> registered for informational purposes as long as there is a published
> specification that has been reviewed by a designated expert.
> The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP, RFCs 7480-7484) is the
> proposed standard for retrieving registration metadata from both
> domain name and Regional Internet Registries. Some registries are
> using it now and many more are expected as ICANN moves towards
> requiring it of generic top-level domain registries.
> <MB>same comment here. More over, timing data such as « using it now »
> does not survive well over time. Suggested change is to remove the last
> sentence.
> </MB>
> To ensure
> interoperable implementations it's important to coordinate and
> standardize extensions and profiles to be used by registries.
> Extensions in both cases that seek the status of Internet standard are
> subject to more thorough review and open discussion within the IETF.
> In addition, commonality may be discovered in related extensions,
> especially EPP extensions listed on the EPP extension registry, for
> which it would makes sense to merge them into a single standard
> extension everybody agrees on.
> The REGEXT working group is the home of the coordination effort for
> standards track extensions. The selection of extensions for standards
> track shall incorporate the following guidelines.
>  1.
>     Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
>     informational or experimental EPP extensions will follow the expert
>     review process as described in RFC7451 for inclusion in the EPP
>     extensions registry. These documents will not be part of the REGEXT
>     working group work or milestones. The working group may discuss or
>     advise on these documents.
>  2.
>     Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for WG
>     adoption. If accepted by the working group then the development of
>     the standard may proceed.
>  3.
>     The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
>     seeking standards track status. When there are no more proposals
>     for a standards track extension the working group will either close or
>     go dormant according to IETF rules. The mailing list will remain open
>     and available for the use of the expert review process as described in
>     RFC7451.
> The working group will focus initially on the backlog of EPP extensions.
> <MB>The last paragraphs are really EPP focused. We already know that
> they are some RDAP extensions that need to be standardized. I think the
> text should reflect that.
> </MB>
> On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:09, James Galvin wrote:
>     Included in this message is the final charter description that has
>     been previously agreed to by this working group.
>     What is missing are the milestones. A follow up message will propose
>     a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group
>     meeting (and here on the list of course).
>     I'm separating these parts so we focus discussion.
>     Jim
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     EppExt mailing list
> <>