Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

Declan Ma <> Tue, 08 December 2015 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF511B2F85 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:08:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.549
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SaXYpu5HpZKd for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id EAC021B2F72 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:08:37 -0800 (PST)
X-TM-DID: 0e2bd2d28e12962af65e6a4c61c9974e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Declan Ma <>
In-Reply-To: <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 00:08:21 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <054701d130a0$73a37d90$5aea78b0$@cn>
To: Linlin Zhou <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Antoin Verschuren <>, eppext <>
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:08:40 -0000

> 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