Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"Gould, James" <> Wed, 09 December 2015 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE191B2D8D for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:41:31 -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 obYlKbozSZ8V for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::263]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945241B2D85 for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by oibl204 with SMTP id l204so3693238oib.3 for <>; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:41:27 -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=+rR8lkMbIC5AM7a18Dkj2b9aXqCAtYDecq9J1yYf1oE=; b=FGELFf4KWKmgBLZCYJGNiH/Ym/+F0WAvyfaIRrdcV4lZaPnTSuw7PkC1LnZXx27Zc9 ZVDubVQj2Wv+vWiwvJ3V7fXdIsj6OvUo624IJHc9R7FWiykfFd3GbYoji58usuM0cqBC lhyPM8gTuv4bkSFhELM/t2TJQbRaCspfa128y0j5mK34TBeRrfiuiH/NmFt8i3O8vScD y3qglarwOpbAyzR/I8uZgDCdwOAETUxRQ6nDouGfbTZvlwC8mHjn282DoUVTCiPO4xPA UJJ7HK7p8zmTCq8DZ84I8/awXiajpBHnGRFS4OVBmrx/MKmoJhnE61W2GKpKuHVAD5I9 4Wqw==
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=+rR8lkMbIC5AM7a18Dkj2b9aXqCAtYDecq9J1yYf1oE=; b=Fr5MhHP+qAqLfwF1VZhh588EyPrQcLR6YMFFmI3Us26oemozA9mo0gCzU+B/Z/6yVz ItNwnhAEN+1bCPD2y9ej/nRP2sTK2fqFGD9b4uJwhh512KWwrvK79SXzk3KOfoVs5FAZ 12o7TEoH98+suGfGeR4luWSvd5jGhXM/arr3aTr9jKSlXTHgqUqB/o2zBNFt+Ijvn2bO VxFbvM1hXLjMU0yRbbSxsUkFM/PVNmZgDdoFtOszPdQIMJooei5QW7Sy+I88aMJmFdrC b2A30IlUBj1JItDS60M/e34TIQ4JaPutlKk0YchA+NOi6Ii8ZMV6UBzzzw81QglX0NKg q6+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9Lic90ktfWZKpTy/8tESEkWbe9NDISHOh6V1FRvDvh6Lcs0A+JLatvSDfSpKYRoa5RnOcEVLnvFOgiirR58UWx/NOHMhYWfW1Pe//cNZPmxNKhmk=
X-Received: by with SMTP id e202mr13920136qhe.81.1449675686398; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id y145sm1183037qka.12.2015. (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (brn1wnexchm01 []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB9FfO30014284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:41:25 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:41:22 -0500
From: "Gould, James" <>
To: Declan Ma <>
Thread-Topic: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
Thread-Index: AQHRLoRHCbKgve9FKUykWj9dwYlRfp6/N66AgAJkbICAAAfIAIABdsEAgAAMQIA=
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:41:21 +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_B2962FC04D4C43D9868A05FB44F5BEA1verisigncom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Linlin Zhou <>, eppext <>, Antoin Verschuren <>
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 15:41:31 -0000


I’m not aware of any technical limitations with EPP that would makes it unsuitable for passing the verification materials.  We previously discussed the applicability of EPP for this on the list.  Below are the relevant posts:

  1.  My reply to Linlin Zhou -
  2.  Scott Hollenbeck’s reply to Linlin Zhou -

Do you have any technical concerns with the use of EPP for this?





James Gould
Distinguished Engineer

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190<>

On Dec 9, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Declan Ma <<>> wrote:

在 2015年12月9日,00:36,Gould, James <<>> 写道:

The proposal is to move draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode as a standards track WG document to define the locality verification framework, and to include draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping as a concrete informational draft applicable to China.  This way the framework can be discussed along with a concrete implementation of the framework.

I think the framework offered by your draft is brilliant and is shedding lights on the R&D work in my team. I support it adopted as WG item.

Besides, many registry operators in China, enlightened by your draft, are working on their implementations of verification mechanisms.

Do you have feedback on the contents of draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping?

I also appreciate the innovation of nv draft.

Granted, my concern is that using EPP to transport verification materials, pictures for instance, changes the light-weight EPP operation practice.






James Gould
Distinguished Engineer<>

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Declan Ma <> wrote:

在 2015年12月7日,11:36,Linlin Zhou <> 写道:

Dear chair,
Thanks for your work to propose the discussion.

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?


I quite agree with you, speaking as a technical guy from Chinese DNS industry.

Since the nv draft bears relevances to the local policies in China and is intended to be Informational, thorough discussions are indispensable to see whether it is qualified to be a WG item.

It’s unwise to jump into the decision of putting nv draft in milestone and to-do list.

Di Ma


EppExt mailing list

EppExt mailing list