Re: [eppext] final charter description

Jacques Latour <> Thu, 05 November 2015 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FEC1B2AF9 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 21:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VcQguKGZ19VU for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 21:16:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852721A92E7 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 21:16:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at
Received: from EXCH-01.CORP.CIRA.CA ([fe80::2073:dbc0:bb14:ab50]) by EXCH-02.CORP.CIRA.CA ([fe80::3c25:d5f2:72b8:e35c%17]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:16:53 -0500
From: Jacques Latour <>
To: MarcBlanchet <>, James Galvin <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] final charter description
Thread-Index: AQHRF2aVajm9bQyg8ESeN968nev/iJ6M9Z6AgAACA4CAAASIAIAAAZ6AgADQgAA=
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:16:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-CA
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D26114BA2F43Ejacqueslatourciraca_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: eppext <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] final charter description
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 05:16:56 -0000

I think we should consider the scope for DNS Operator registration protocols, like described in draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-00 and future development.


On 2015-11-05, 10:50 AM, "EppExt on behalf of Marc Blanchet" <<> on behalf of<>> wrote:

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:44, James Galvin wrote:

For right now, I would say no. This charter has been agreed to by the working group and is waiting for milestones to move forward.

Changing the scope would change the charter and I would recommend against this.

That's a process argument against.

Separately, I think this topic is different enough from "extensions" that it should itself be separate from this working group. Just my opinion of course. Would like to hear from others.

well, let me rephrase my point, and not concentrating on that specific draft. Is the charter strictly scoped to EPP and RDAP protocols (which seem to be), or is the scope about registration protocols (in which a bit larger scope would enable these initiatives to be in scope). Yes, there is danger for too large scope. But I wanted to at least raise the awareness of the group before we restrict ourselves to RDAP and EPP.



On 11/4/15 8:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:

have another comment about charter: should topics like this
(draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-00) be in scope of the new wg?
if yes, then we may want to make it so.


On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Marc Blanchet wrote:

few comments on the proposed charter:

Proposed Charter
Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) Working Group

The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, Standard 69) is the
standard domain name provisioning protocol for top-level domain name
registries, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) requires all new generic top-level domain registries
to implement EPP. To avoid many separate EPP extensions that provide
the same functions, it's important to coordinate and standardize EPP

<MB>I would be more happy to not specifically talk about ICANN
requirements for gTLD, but more in general for any registries,
including cctlds. I would just remove « and the Internet Corporation
… to implement EPP ».

The EPP Extensions (EPPEXT) working group completed its first goal of
creating an IANA registry of EPP extensions. The registration process
of the registry is documented in RFC7451. Extensions may be
registered for informational purposes as long as there is a published
specification that has been reviewed by a designated expert.

The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP, RFCs 7480-7484) is the
proposed standard for retrieving registration metadata from both
domain name and Regional Internet Registries. Some registries are
using it now and many more are expected as ICANN moves towards
requiring it of generic top-level domain registries.

<MB>same comment here. More over, timing data such as « using it
now » does not survive well over time. Suggested change is to remove
the last sentence.

To ensure
interoperable implementations it's important to coordinate and
standardize extensions and profiles to be used by registries.

Extensions in both cases that seek the status of Internet standard are
subject to more thorough review and open discussion within the IETF.

In addition, commonality may be discovered in related extensions,
especially EPP extensions listed on the EPP extension registry, for
which it would makes sense to merge them into a single standard
extension everybody agrees on.

The REGEXT working group is the home of the coordination effort for
standards track extensions. The selection of extensions for standards
track shall incorporate the following guidelines.


Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
informational or experimental EPP extensions will follow the expert
review process as described in RFC7451 for inclusion in the EPP
extensions registry. These documents will not be part of the REGEXT
working group work or milestones. The working group may discuss or
advise on these documents.


Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for WG
adoption. If accepted by the working group then the development of
the standard may proceed.


The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
seeking standards track status. When there are no more proposals
for a standards track extension the working group will either
close or
go dormant according to IETF rules. The mailing list will remain
and available for the use of the expert review process as
described in

The working group will focus initially on the backlog of EPP extensions.

<MB>The last paragraphs are really EPP focused. We already know that
they are some RDAP extensions that need to be standardized. I think
the text should reflect that.

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:09, James Galvin wrote:

Included in this message is the final charter description that
has been previously agreed to by this working group.

What is missing are the milestones. A follow up message will
propose a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working
group meeting (and here on the list of course).

I'm separating these parts so we focus discussion.



EppExt mailing list<> <>


EppExt mailing list<><>