Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,

As discussed yesterday at the EPPEXT meeting in Prague this normative reference issue is a showstopper for the RFC editor, so we need another revision to this draft before we can proceed to the IESG, which probably means we won’t make the WGLC deadline.

We have 2 options for this:
-Replace the normative reference to another stable document, perhaps an ICANN document?
-Revive draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and take it up as a WG document and proceed that one first.

Gustavo: Are you willing to revive your document as it is currently expired, and make a request to the WG to adopt it?
The WG can perhaps already review this document in parallel and provide you with feedback.

The authors of  draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase can then replace their reference and we can proceed with WGLC.

This action has no impact on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd, and we will continue WGLC on that as announced.

Jim and Antoin

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: [phone]
xmpp:[e-mail]




Op 22 jul. 2015, om 17:20 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gould, James
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:02 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Antoin Verschuren; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-
>> launchphase
>> 
>> Scott,
>> 
>> Thank you for the review and feedback.  Your feedback can be addressed
>> in the next update of the draft.  Below I include my embedded comments
>> ("JG: " prefix) to your feedback that I can bring up at the EPPEXT WG
>> meeting.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: EppExt [[e-mail]] on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott
>> [[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:18 AM
>> To: Antoin Verschuren; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for       draft-ietf-
>> eppext-launchphase
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Hollenbeck,
>>> Scott
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:50 AM
>>> To: Antoin Verschuren; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-
>>> launchphase
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Antoin
>>>> Verschuren
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:02 PM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [eppext] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-eppext-
>>>> launchphase
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> 
>>>> This is the starting of the WGLC on the Launch Phase Mapping for
>> the
>>>> Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP).
>>>> There was extensive discussion on the mailing list, an we believe
>> the
>>>> outcome is incorporated in the
>>>> document and is ready for WGLC.
>>>> The current version of this document can be found here:
>>>> 
>>>>  https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-05.txt
>>> 
>>> I have reviewed this document. Comments:
>>> 
>>> The URI for the "TMCH Functional Specification" appears twice in the
>>> list of URIs. One of the instances should be removed and the
>> citations
>>> should be adjusted accordingly. More importantly, that URI identifies
>>> an expired Internet-Draft. Is it really the best reference? This
>> isn't
>>> a normative reference so I don't think it needs to be brought up to
>>> date for this document to proceed, but I would like to ask if it
>> makes
>>> sense to refer to expired I-Ds in this way.
>> 
>> JG: The duplicate URI can be removed.
>> JG: I believe that the reference is important even with the reference
>> being an expired draft since the concept of "claims", as supported by
>> the protocol, is covered in the TMCH Functional Specification and not
>> duplicated in the launchphase draft.
> 
> Oh, I agree that the reference is important. I'm questioning inclusion of a link to an expired draft. Is there another reference, perhaps a document on the ICANN web site?
> 
> Scott