Re: [eppext] Recharter Milestones discussion

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Fri, 04 December 2015 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 C321A1A870B for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:05:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 pRA1wPZreEr1 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70A11A870A for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.111] (modemcable093.65-160-184.mc.videotron.ca [184.160.65.93]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D25A476EE; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:05:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Antoin Verschuren" <ietf@antoin.nl>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:05:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CA0BDBEB-5A7D-4F6E-9248-07235CD1ECAA@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <48E1D317-3EB2-43A8-A5DA-72D7BC984758@viagenie.ca>
References: <F8238C95-4212-419A-BDE3-913E5CA6F99F@antoin.nl> <48E1D317-3EB2-43A8-A5DA-72D7BC984758@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_ACFAA441-23AC-4961-9313-A5C23C7134E1_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5187)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/w5oEk-isBWJsmcSTRrpDPGT-ef0>
Cc: eppext <eppext@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 14:05:22 -0000

Adding one more point to my opinion on milestones and grouping: Instead 
of spending time on groups of milestones vs non-groups of milestones, 
maybe we should work on the technical stuff and get the documents out. 
By the time we have spent and wait since months now for the new charter, 
we could have processed many documents already. Therefore, the issue 
here is not grouping or not, it is to make progress on the documents and 
move them forward to the IESG. So first priority is to get this new 
charter out ASAP and then move the documents.

My 2 cents.

Marc.

On 4 Dec 2015, at 6:50, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2015, at 6:09, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>
>> Dear Working Group,
>>
>> Apologies for this late starting of this discussion.
>> I had intended to start this discussion some weeks ago, but I was 
>> waiting for Jim to edit the draft charter text so we could be in 
>> agreement on the draft charter text and the milestones at the same 
>> time. Jim is very busy and didn’t get around to that yet, so as 
>> sugested by Linlin, let’s start the discussion on the proposed 
>> milestones and have that item concluded on.
>>
>> Below you will find the list of proposed milestones.
>> I have reordered them based on our discussion in Yokohama.
>
> I have said in Yokohama and continue to believe that this grouping is 
> unnecessary. Just treat all these documents in an asynchronous mode. 
> It makes everything simpler to manage, for both the chairs and the wg.
>
> A priority is obviously needed, but not in a hard way. Just propose 
> document priorities and let start with that. We may end up changing 
> the priorities as we go, for various reasons, internal or external to 
> the wg.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Marc.
>
>>
>> What we would like to hear from the WG is if this list of milestones 
>> is accepted.
>> To order the discussion, comments can be made:
>> -Either on a specific document not to be in the milestones list so it 
>> will not become a WG item.
>> -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)
>>
>>
>>
>> Please send feedback to the list on these proposed milestones before 
>> December 25, so we can conclude our new charter and milestones before 
>> the end of this year.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jim and Antoin
>>
>> - --
>> Antoin Verschuren
>>
>> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
>> M: +31 6 37682392
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
>> EppExt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext