Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

["Linlin Zhou" <[e-mail]>]

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?

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 :)

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.

Thanks and Regards,
Linlin

> -Discussion on priority or grouping, but then there needs to be consensus
on
> which documents to exchange in the priority because we cannot work on all
> documents at the same time.
> 
> To be clear:
> -All of the documents on this list will become WG documents.
> -As discussed in Yokohama, this WG focusses on Standards track documents,
> but at the WG request, we can review Informational documents, and the nv
> mapping draft in one such example where the authors have requested WG
> review.


> -The order and priority can be changed in the future, but this is the
initial order
> in which we think work can be done.
> -There is room for new evolving documents to be added later.
> 
> 
> MILESTONES
> 
> The proposal is to create a set of groups of our documents, order those
groups,
> and then create milestones for each group.
> 
> As a starting point for discussion there is a set of documents already
active and
> the rest have been distributed into 4 sets.
> 
> 
> Here is the proposed set of milestones.  It is based on the model of 3
months
> per group.
> 
> Active Now
> 
> - WGLC completed by December 2015
> - Submit for publication January 2016
> 


> Group 1
> 
> - WGLC completed by February 2016
> - Submit for publication March 2016
> 
> Group 2
> 
> - WGLC completed by May 2016
> - Submit for publication June 2016
> 
> Group 3
> 
> - WGLC completed by September 2016
> - Submit for publication October 2016
> 
> Group 4
> 
> - WGLC completed by January 2017
> - Submit for publication February 2017
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the proposed groupings of the documents.
> 
> Active now
> 
> draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay
> draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd
> 
> draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase
> draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-func-spec
> 
> 
> Group 1
> 
> -epp-rdap mapping (draft-gould-epp-rdap-status-mapping)
> -verification code (draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode)
> -nv mapping (draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping)(Remains as Informational, but
> reviewed by WG)
> 

> 
> Group 2
> 
> -reseller (draft-zhou-eppext-reseller and
draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-mapping)
> -allocation token (draft-gould-allocation-token) -change poll
> (draft-gould-change-poll)
> 
> 
> Group 3
> 
> -fees (draft-brown-epp-fees-05)
> -bundling (draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration)
> 
> 
> Group 4
> 
> -IDN Table Mapping (draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap and draft-gould-idn-table
and
> draft-wilcox-cira-idn-eppext) -Relay (no draft yet, split from keyrelay)