Re: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter

"James Galvin" <> Fri, 29 January 2016 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAF11ACDC2 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:00:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xIlEawPS1spx for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36411ACDC1 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s5so24413772qkd.0 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:00:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/akVd+x24j1S4pbA1+LFsDpWeY9N4KInibVlbTZF414=; b=ICFBwBg8bjeRs5MtN54tnN4TdKmTFH7x5M9poDzWtbs9Qy/BBr0reBwT8OV1jM9CRg MzbKWiwKyfF2jGLlGoDmPt0UqdFQipA5AZN1ghl86bn+Egg8Quh7mz4UBbHdFTTBacG0 +ZHa8mmWrOY+WxpsmIceQkm2GaFbK6p+kXxXRvp1+YWH2Mxjji4qt+eTQUHoI1jgoBb3 6/bcYAkC0kv0uGtx1qG7xilajcQBA6Ane1ePBOhlD7DkR3fQhhJ5yPJ5NQU0emDWn54z nV870LBtvvj/H5nsshFdYTgNEotqtfZYtF/R2qk47gJAIANJeikrxMuTQQq7N7ouXy/Z wN9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/akVd+x24j1S4pbA1+LFsDpWeY9N4KInibVlbTZF414=; b=GrMIK6/4kQ+lo2tvlJXRgCp2HVN9R57bU3K4SALCPs7GavDj6IQGULsjFGvVo1AHNd WHIDAOoDCZ6cUeG4XQIA+7vsL3SnrHmIejbSA1MuMh28ha3EzA+IiAlVzwiYiSSUM9Ci EEQAF2fZmtaqrxO7xEy9qnbUOSPaNnpYkb4mK7O6PYyn9Kv5PiutCntun5uP+MsgB9W3 QZwfEoeBjnONkVFWrp/NX7izCksE7HaNq/mmhnKfAoTHvjygnglTfPEW2Lsc5WQYI+fg rVGw+KQs6G8YHxsAof4sQE3uUTpskKv5iCxJsqQAXweJ/Uj6X9NLMmkwGheCHu0jcHSO CzVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSjtF2n9U2J7q/PCvlwkWyB/bVIPmeQMKkX73iu6WUHXePiqutIjMzaCLUUWS4gpQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a142mr10667218qkb.44.1454076004000; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x79sm6040172qka.37.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:00:02 -0800 (PST)
From: James Galvin <>
To: Gustavo Lozano <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:00:04 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5187)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: eppext <>
Subject: Re: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:00:07 -0000

On 26 Jan 2016, at 12:46, Gustavo Lozano wrote:

> I think that we should add
> draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date to the milestones 
> in
> March 2016.
> In the case of gTLDs, the draft thick Whois policy requires registries 
> to
> show the reseller and registrar expiration date in the RDDS (e.g. 
> Whois,
> RDAP) output. The drafts: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller* and
> draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date, provide a 
> mechanism to
> transmit the reseller and registrar expiration date in the
> registry-registrar channel, therefore I think that they should go
> together. RDAP supports publishing the information (reseller and 
> registrar
> expiration date), and registries/registrars should benefit if there is 
> a
> mechanism agreed by the community to transmit the information in EPP.

We need to see support from the working group to do this.  If folks 
support this would they please respond on the list, ideally today?

As Chair, I more concerned with getting the initial revised charter done 
today than making this change.  Personally, this change makes sense to 
me but since we can update milestones much more easily, as Chair, I’d 
rather get the charter done and then press to get the milestones updated 

Unless of course there’s a storm of support for adding this milestone 
now, then we’ll get it in before we submit the charter today.

> There is another draft (draft-lozano-rdap-nameservers-sharing-name) 
> that I
> would like to add the milestones, as this draft is trying to solve an
> issue discovered when drafting the RDAP profile, it would be 
> beneficial
> for the implementation plan of the draft thick whois policy / RDAP 
> profile
> to have it in the October 2016 set.

Similarly, since the date for this milestone is pretty far out, I’d 
rather wait on this and work to add it after the charter is done.

Of course, other opinions and preferences from the working group are 
always welcome.


> Regards,
> Gustavo
> On 1/26/16, 06:55, "EppExt on behalf of James Galvin"
> < on behalf of> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2016, at 3:00, Rik Ribbers wrote:
>>> However as time has passed a new draft has
>>> surfaced(draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date)  Should
>>> we add this to the milestone list or not?
>>> I prefer not to add them and do a call for adoption when we finally
>>> have the new charter in place (as we can do this based on our new
>>> charter).
>> Thanks for your question!
>> We decided not to add anything that has not already been discussed 
>> for
>> just this reason.  The milestones also set the priority for our 
>> tasks.
>> We can always change this but I think it¹s more prudent to get a
>> baseline established and then change as we go when needed.
>> Of course, if folks prefer a different path please do speak up.
>>> One side question:
>>> Will we alias the mailinglists (eppext, provreg weirds) into a new 
>>> one
>>> as discussed here:
>>> Shouldn¹t this be in the charter somewhere or is this just 
>>> something
>>> operational when the new charter is approved? Again I hope for the
>>> last as I do not want to delay the rechartering process.
>> I don¹t know about provreg but for eppext and weirds it is an
>> operational issue and it will just happen.  I haven¹t asked about 
>> the
>> details but I presume that subscribers from both will be added to the
>> new list.  We¹ll get the specifics and let folks know.
>> Jim
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list