Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"Gould, James" <> Tue, 08 December 2015 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8DA1B2F59 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:47:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrIyXQ3OqIpS for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::264]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E69CB1B2F45 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so1593968qge.0 for <>; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 07:47:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :content-type:mime-version; bh=8Xnwf/zm1uYdm4+8kVmPoIThdiy82d9nXhuwadcNVpo=; b=H6n5oKGraY/Dy+UlfYoiuZdwQqWpbArr3fLO76aTSffjyd7CnEjt9TFsq6jSFz0bLd C7wRLi6w+0KU++UupB4ui76HHfnMRclgBQSB5TTI2lwUZxMEeSNU0zi0Kz6EuC+a48Uh UWdZLL0/uW1u9vDnadMV0InPReBUlPG9FdHtq3WSKfA/I4pUmrWntq9NCoNDOmd6df6I ZFPvfoAC/e+/72zene3sUB6IyuoQl1n2BEmPqUzeL5p7oF0duMXJLtkwndUujwX212po 2mm7NUyhv6c452z/120EgsxV2YckarVraeP05IZdMaHoBqSm0aV3+Mi4j24VWfr8as58 j5Eg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-type:mime-version; bh=8Xnwf/zm1uYdm4+8kVmPoIThdiy82d9nXhuwadcNVpo=; b=MWzIQ0IfpS1iw4dVJUcE630WjvqjFffTt65FB3CFkV6FNyH0nGbr8h6JcpXO/umQWB Tg/L+MLN1D/oaGHtMwoJztyKAZF8BmA1K4E8ojhMpCXAHHsRJl3zvFyYIYqdJHMHA6B/ Ghnn1BX3bJ7w/rMXJmqJRrmfsc1JWolRMcnnmVZal35TJzr+nDmCrYgm8FQiU4soUr/L c0hVigUNFrglJjGn+Awep4hXA2T1LOuJo4VkiG5X1gwMJnrObLdlt2M9ON+ug1YN9K1X asRyXUlosxjnb3ubxzTLpfDYXKXUjlmDnWAie5uskTzWGtimf1asjP25F6hQfFd3LHf8 AQFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnCBynU5GPAC3u0Wook8oHhQr3OK/1WWmsbUQTqtr0xIbrjs+wbRXXQI9ktD6BLUP+bwzxSizOeMA703XCe+4t1C+2mAL/cMA1iY2HXZ2vDbaKFHhc=
X-Received: by with SMTP id z16mr213397qka.83.1449589649476; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 07:47:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id x206sm506313qka.10.2015. (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Dec 2015 07:47:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexcas01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB8FlST8014641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:47:29 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:47:28 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Antoin Verschuren <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
Thread-Index: AQHRLoRHCbKgve9FKUykWj9dwYlRfp6/N66AgAH93gCAAGC3gA==
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:47:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_9A36ACCF844F4FE1801B5C4F013F71F3verisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: eppext <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:47:34 -0000


My feedback is below.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Dec 8, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Antoin Verschuren <<>> wrote:

Op 7 dec. 2015, om 04:36 heeft Linlin Zhou <<>> 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?

Your proposal looks reasonable; although I recommend moving fees up to Group 1, moving the verification code and nv mapping drafts to group 2, and moving the allocation token and change poll drafts to group 3.  If there was bandwidth to move reseller up to Group 1 and change poll up to Group 2, that works for me.  There may be one small overlap between verification and reseller that we may want to consider.  My proposed groupings are below.

Group 1

-epp-rdap mapping (draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping)
-fees (draft-brown-epp-fees)

Group 2

-reseller (draft-zhou-eppext-reseller and draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-mapping)
-verification (draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode and draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping)

Group 3

-change poll (draft-gould-change-poll)
-allocation token (draft-gould-allocation-token)
-bundling (draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration)

Group 4

-IDN Table Mapping (draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap and draft-gould-idn-table and draft-wilcox-cira-idn-eppext)
-Relay (no draft yet, split from keyrelay)

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

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.


- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392
EppExt mailing list<>