Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl> Tue, 08 December 2015 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@antoin.nl>
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 D508C1AC3F2 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 02:01:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.982
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 imi72F-sRhkw for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 02:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from walhalla.antoin.nl (walhalla.antoin.nl [88.159.164.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AB31AC3F1 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 02:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.114] (unknown [192.168.0.1]) by walhalla.antoin.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19FCE280411 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:01:25 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=antoin.nl; s=walhalla; t=1449568885; bh=5U+X3x69EpD2y8DJWzC7M2S1hvi9/O5sBY+smOwzV9M=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:From; b=ULOhWICXCecMWR/G1R/I8/4kAiTxW6wuqOImvb3SdNTr2H9z2Jln2AdtPGtyrIb1G RFTd6gUyNvWbs0YGG6B/NEKeyJG0W/ox1DnpHVyEXCReUvJTs1e2XjbAyRHRFL3ozt qqMq2tY3sPCPjEI7Ngtzkm3xko6WnYsRndTFwWKo=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8DF55FFA-6B2F-4659-B936-DC5984F6AD60"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Antoin Verschuren <ietf@antoin.nl>
In-Reply-To: <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:01:18 +0100
Message-Id: <3DD8E76A-AEC8-4CB2-9886-7454B796BB4F@antoin.nl>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl> <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>
To: eppext <eppext@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/cyUafq305lXCtnpxi94vOIYMd7E>
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:01:28 -0000

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?

> 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