Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94

Antoin Verschuren <> Thu, 05 November 2015 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB33D1B304B for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:29:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.683
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QgWD7O_lWxe5 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D981B304A for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79F5B2800EC for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:29:51 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=walhalla; t=1446740991; bh=i3MydePlT7YeYiJ45nRWbvuLffIsTzde7KRl47IZh1A=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:From; b=dzcHNwAxUV11C/1fFujeOZpu6TWipRQYjrgkqJz9Bbp79tBrZp5gCPXFtFhm+g8uS mg5DioP9Q7eRQGqHx8eOitDUl4tlU/TpU9sDqlZ/sIKHQZjmSfrrETEVWZW4iLey2/ gQ14B3D/Isl8OIF5jdMU6l3v21DAZKdssYrbshww=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_63072697-9B94-461A-9547-D5939EB0B774"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Antoin Verschuren <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:29:50 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: eppext <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Minutes for our meeting in Yokohama IETF94
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 16:29:54 -0000

As always, adoption of documents is not done in the meeting, but decisions are always taken on the mailinglist.
Hums during the meeting is an indication for the chairs of the direction the working group wants to go.
To my recollection, we had 2 hums during the meeting:

The first hum was on the general question if the working group wanted to work on Informational documents in general as the proposed charter states that informational RFC’s for EPP extensions can follow the Expert review path. The hum indicated strong consensus that we would not exclude working on informational documents so we will not exclude that in our proposed charter.

The second hum was if the working group agreed to divide the upcoming work into groups to set clear deadlines for our milestones as we cannot prioritize every document with our small working group with limited resources.

As specific for the nv draft, we didn’t make a final decision yet, but we would send the proposed list of milestones to the mailinglist, with the inclusion of the nv draft in group 1, and ask the mailinglist for approval of the milestones. Not everyone had read the nv draft yet, so one outcome could still be that the nv draft will not be in our milestones if there is objection on the mailinglist.
All the documents in our milestones will be working group documents off course.
When it is decided that the nv draft will not become a working group document, one can still request review from the working group members as an example for the verification framework.

Advise from me: I would suggest to the authors of the verification framework to replace the word "verification" with "validation" as that captures the process more then verification. Validation was also used for ENUM to verify the correctness of phone numbers and it’s owners, so there might be some good guidance in the ENUM documentation.

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392

Op 5 nov. 2015, om 16:30 heeft Gould, James <> het volgende geschreven:

> I recall a vote around inclusion of informational drafts in general but I don’t remember a vote around inclusion of the nv draft itself.  It would be interesting to here from others on the list whether they support or don’t support inclusion of the nv draft based on what was discussed at the meeting and what has been discussed on this thread thus far.  I obviously feel that it is an important draft that deserves adoption by the working group.
> —
> JG
> <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png>
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Linlin Zhou <> wrote:
>> Dear WG,
>>> I see your point. I am a horrible jabber scribe….I missed that remark by Jim Galvin completely.
>>> @Chairs: Can you make a clear statement on the list to either confirm or decline my interpretation about the verification drafts being adopted or not.
>> Same question to chairs. Could you please confirm on the mailing list again whether nv draft is included in WG document?
>> I recalled my memory that several people have comments to express concerns on nv draft and it seems not be fully supported to be adopted. But it appeared in the milestone. It confused me a lot. Thanks.
>>>> On 05 Nov 2015, at 20:52, xiejiagui@teleinfo.cnwrote:
>>>> Hello Rik,
>>>> Let me post the messages from the Jabber:
>>>> <Catch.jpg>
>>>> <CatchF973.jpg>
>>>> Jim Galvin(JimG?) has confirmed  this .
>>>> We do think it's useful to discuss this draft in the WG, and any comments about this draft are welcome.
>> Regards,
>> Linlin
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list