Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"" <> Wed, 09 December 2015 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BCD1A8742 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:12:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.534
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6gXFIaqw2pe for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38ECB1A874B for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:12:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kevin (unknown []) by app3 (Coremail) with SMTP id GBADCgAn+0n1jWdWyFYYAA--.1087S2; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:12:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:12:07 +0800
From: "" <>
To: Antoin Verschuren <>, eppext <>, zhoulinlin <>
References: <>, <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>, <>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: E0CDB90D-2401-42D1-A097-A3FFF367E137
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 21[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart642477863236_=----"
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxCFWUCr4fGF1ftr15CFWfKrg_yoW5trW5pa yYqr13KFWkJF17Cwn7Ar1Iqr4FvayfXrWDJFy3JrW8A345G3Wvqwsrt3W5ZryUCr4Fq3WY vr4jg345JFsYv3DanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPab7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVCF0I0E 4I0vr24l5I8CrVC2j2CEjI02ccxYII8I67AEr4CY67k08wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJV WUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAK I48JM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48G6xCjnVAKz4kxM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24l42xK82 IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2 0s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMI IF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF 0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4xI67k04243AbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU gZYwUUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: x0lhyxpdjxxq5whovxxqirhubq/
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 02:12:26 -0000

Dear Colleagues,

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

My feedback is below.

Jiagui Xie

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 <> 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?
 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.
- --
Antoin Verschuren
Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392
EppExt mailing list