Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for the effort and contribution to promote the eppext's WG work.

My feedback is below.

Regards,
Jiagui Xie

Teleinfo

From: Antoin Verschuren
Date: 2015-12-08 18:01
To: eppext
Subject: Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
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?

Jiagui: 
 Linlin & Antoin, Although the starting point of  the nv draft is from the local solution, We see that in
 the southeast asia and eastern europe, there are some countries have already considered the verification, they have the same requirments. 
 And this draft is not bound to China local policy too, it is just a third-party verification model which may be useful to the global technical community.
 I welcome any comments on this draft from this WG,  but I do think the discussion should be based on its technical merits and discussion
 ought to be focused on the technical solution itself and on any possible technical issues relating to it.

> 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

_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
EppExt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext