Re: [eppext] final charter description

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:44, James Galvin wrote:

> For right now, I would say no.  This charter has been agreed to by the 
> working group and is waiting for milestones to move forward.
>
> Changing the scope would change the charter and I would recommend 
> against this.
>
> That's a process argument against.
>
> Separately, I think this topic is different enough from "extensions" 
> that it should itself be separate from this working group.  Just my 
> opinion of course.  Would like to hear from others.

well, let me rephrase my point, and not concentrating on that specific 
draft. Is the charter strictly scoped to EPP and RDAP protocols (which 
seem to be), or is the scope about registration protocols (in which a 
bit larger scope would enable these initiatives to be in scope).  Yes, 
there is danger for too large scope. But I wanted to at least raise the 
awareness of the group before we restrict ourselves to RDAP and EPP.

Marc.

>
> Jim
>
>
>
> On 11/4/15 8:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> have another comment about charter: should topics like this
>> (draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-00) be in scope of the new 
>> wg?
>> if yes, then we may want to make it so.
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>>
>> few comments on the proposed charter:
>>
>> Proposed Charter
>> Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) Working Group
>>
>> The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, Standard 69) is the
>> standard domain name provisioning protocol for top-level domain name
>> registries, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>> Numbers (ICANN) requires all new generic top-level domain registries
>> to implement EPP. To avoid many separate EPP extensions that provide
>> the same functions, it's important to coordinate and standardize EPP
>> extensions.
>>
>> <MB>I would be more happy to not specifically talk about ICANN
>> requirements for gTLD, but more in general for any registries,
>> including cctlds. I would just remove « and the Internet Corporation
>> … to implement EPP ».
>> </MB>
>>
>> The EPP Extensions (EPPEXT) working group completed its first goal of
>> creating an IANA registry of EPP extensions. The registration process
>> of the registry is documented in RFC7451. Extensions may be
>> registered for informational purposes as long as there is a published
>> specification that has been reviewed by a designated expert.
>>
>> The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP, RFCs 7480-7484) is the
>> proposed standard for retrieving registration metadata from both
>> domain name and Regional Internet Registries. Some registries are
>> using it now and many more are expected as ICANN moves towards
>> requiring it of generic top-level domain registries.
>>
>> <MB>same comment here. More over, timing data such as « using it
>> now » does not survive well over time. Suggested change is to remove
>> the last sentence.
>> </MB>
>>
>> To ensure
>> interoperable implementations it's important to coordinate and
>> standardize extensions and profiles to be used by registries.
>>
>> Extensions in both cases that seek the status of Internet standard 
>> are
>> subject to more thorough review and open discussion within the IETF.
>>
>> In addition, commonality may be discovered in related extensions,
>> especially EPP extensions listed on the EPP extension registry, for
>> which it would makes sense to merge them into a single standard
>> extension everybody agrees on.
>>
>> The REGEXT working group is the home of the coordination effort for
>> standards track extensions. The selection of extensions for standards
>> track shall incorporate the following guidelines.
>>
>>  1.
>>
>>     Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
>>     informational or experimental EPP extensions will follow the 
>> expert
>>     review process as described in RFC7451 for inclusion in the EPP
>>     extensions registry. These documents will not be part of the 
>> REGEXT
>>     working group work or milestones. The working group may discuss 
>> or
>>     advise on these documents.
>>
>>  2.
>>
>>     Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for 
>> WG
>>     adoption. If accepted by the working group then the development 
>> of
>>     the standard may proceed.
>>
>>  3.
>>
>>     The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
>>     seeking standards track status. When there are no more proposals
>>     for a standards track extension the working group will either
>>     close or
>>     go dormant according to IETF rules. The mailing list will remain
>>     open
>>     and available for the use of the expert review process as
>>     described in
>>     RFC7451.
>>
>> The working group will focus initially on the backlog of EPP 
>> extensions.
>>
>> <MB>The last paragraphs are really EPP focused. We already know that
>> they are some RDAP extensions that need to be standardized. I think
>> the text should reflect that.
>> </MB>
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:09, James Galvin wrote:
>>
>>     Included in this message is the final charter description that
>>     has been previously agreed to by this working group.
>>
>>     What is missing are the milestones. A follow up message will
>>     propose a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working
>>     group meeting (and here on the list of course).
>>
>>     I'm separating these parts so we focus discussion.
>>
>>     Jim
>>
>>     
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     EppExt mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> EppExt mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>>