Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn> Mon, 07 December 2015 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4141B2D09 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:35:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gyBAJqXSz_4N for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EE31B2D08 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zll (unknown [218.241.111.73]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0BJUCht_mRWiAgWCQ--.21713S2; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 11:35:09 +0800 (CST)
From: "Linlin Zhou" <zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn>
To: "'Antoin Verschuren'" <ietf@antoin.nl>, "'eppext'" <eppext@ietf.org>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl>
In-Reply-To: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:36:25 +0800
Message-ID: <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdEuhEZF15T4990tRomqda2GluF7QQCDubPQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0BJUCht_mRWiAgWCQ--.21713S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxCr4kWF4kGry5Gw47WFWUCFg_yoWrGw4kpa 1UXr13Ca95Jwn7K34vyw1IqrWSy3yftws5AFy5J3y8Aa9xG3W8tw4ak3WY9FyUCrn5ta4S qr4jg34DZrn5ZaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUk2b7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Cr1j6rxdM28EF7xvwV C2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC 0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr 1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JMxkIecxEwVAFwVW8GwCF04k2 0xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r1j6r18MI 8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jrv_JF1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41l IxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIx AIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rW3Jr0E3s1lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVC2 z280aVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUyHUqUUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: p2kr3zplqox0w6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/qYcw6aefDPUroT2lx4Y3TqXU_HY>
Subject: Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:35:22 -0000

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)