Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

Antoin,

My feedback is below.


—


JG


[cid:[e-mail]]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[e-mail]

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Dec 8, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Op 7 dec. 2015, om 04:36 heeft Linlin Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
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: [phone]
_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext