Re: [eppext] final charter description

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?

Jim

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
>     EppExt@ietf.org <mailto:EppExt@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>