[regext] Changes to Milestones

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,

After listening to the feedback on the mailinglist the chairs have discussed with our AD on cleaning up our milestone list.

One important thing to mention is that we have a clear charter on what this WG should have as it’s priority, and that is documents that have a clear consensus on being a standard.
While we are open on discussing informational documents that seek inclusion in the EPP extensions registry, informational documents should not be in our milestones.
With that in mind, and the knowledge that we have a small working group, our AD wants us to keep the number of simultaneous milestones down to under 10.
This means we will drop some milestone items we don’t seem to have enormous consensus on how to standardize now, but they may reappear on our milestones after we have completed other items on the list.

In concrete this means:

We will delete the following documents from our milestones as they have become informational documents after discussion:
-draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec
-draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping

We will delete the following documents from our milestones for now as there is no clear consensus on a one standard fits all for now, and we don’t see that change in a very near future, or because we have items with a higher priority/more traction:
-draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap
-draft-gould-idn-table
-draft-cira-regext-idn
-draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode
Mind you: these topics may reappear on the milestones once the WG has a clear direction on a standard, or other items on our list have been resolved.

The draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is a strange exception.
We will keep this in our milestones for now as there seems to be traction and motivation, but the chairs believe that since the new version of this draft only describes strict bundling, it does not create any new one standard fits all, and only describes one way of bundling implemented by a number of registries/registrars, and should therefor be an informational document describing that practice. Pending that discussion we keep it in the millstones for now.

For all the other documents, we will adjust the dates as discussed.

Thank you all for your support in this discussion,

Jim and Antoin.

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: [phone]






Op 19 mei 2017, om 15:40 heeft James Galvin <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

> During the last IETF meeting we had a request to adopt another document.  As part of that discussion our AD expressed concern about the number of documents currently on our list and the number of milestones currently on our list.
> 
> The Chairs took an action to review both of these and we now have a proposal for consideration by the working group.
> 
> To see the list of current milestones review this link:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/regext/about/
> 
> To see the list of current documents review this link:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/regext/documents/
> 
> The Chairs have contacted the authors of all documents and asked for their feedback regarding the status of their document, reviewed the current proposed milestone dates, and propose the following.  These are shown as they are listed in the current milestones.
> 
> 
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase
>  WGLC finished. Waiting for shepherd write-up adjustments before submitting to IESG.
>  Action: Change milestone date to June 2017.
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec
>  Status changed to Informational. Changed to Parked document.
>  Action: Delete from milestone list.
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping
>  RFC 8056
>  Action: Set Status Resolved on milestone list.
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees
>  Recent version submitted. Active discussion.
>  Action: Change milestone date to July 2017.
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-reseller
> draft-ietf-regext-reseller-ext
>  These drafts have been replaced by draft-ietf-regext-org and draft-ietf-regext-org-ext.
>  Active discussion.
>  Action: Accept new documents, replace on milestones, Change milestone date to Nov 2017.
> 
> draft-gould-eppext-verificationcode
>  No reaction from authors.
>  Action: Replace to draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode on milestone list
>  Change milestone date to June 2018.
> 
> draft-xie-eppext-nv-mapping
>  (current milestone listing but document is really draft-ietf-regext-nv-mappgin)
>  Informational document, waiting for draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode
>  Action: Change to parked document. Delete from milestone list.
> 
> draft-gould-change-poll (change to draft-ietf-regext-change-poll)
>  Needs more reviewers and implementation.
>  Action: Change milestone date to Nov 2017.
> 
> draft-gould-allocation-token (change to draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token)
>  Needs implementation status section and review.
>  Action: Change milestone date to Nov 2017.
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration
>  New version submitted for STRICT bundling.
> draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap
> draft-gould-idn-table
> draft-cira-regext-idn
>  These documents have discussion but no consensus. All these documents relate.
>  Some want all IDN to be included in bundling discussion.
>  Action: Discuss.  Chairs do not have a proposal for a milestone date of these documents.  We need input from the working group.
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol
>  Wants to move to WGLC, but had little review on mailing list.
>  Action: Change milestone date to Jan 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> Other WG documents not on milestone list:
> 
> draft-ietf-regext-validate
>  Adopted. To be pursued after draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees.
>  Action: Add to milestone list with date May 2018.
> 
> draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag
>  Scott requested WG adoption.
>  Action: Formal WG adoption request on mailing list before adding to milestones and after revising existing milestone list.
> 
> 
> Specific questions to the working group:
> 
> 1. Do you agree with the proposed dates for milestones?  If not, please suggest other dates and indicate why you believe your date should be preferred.  If you agree, please show your support on the list.
> 
> 2. Do you agree with the documents selected to be parked or dropped?  If not, please suggest a milestone date and indicate why you believe the working group should keep this document on its milestone list.  If you agree, please show your support on the list.
> 
> 3. Please suggest how you believe the working group should handle the bundling and IDN drafts?  Should they be kept together?  Should they be separated?  Why or why not?  Please also suggest a milestone date if you believe we should keep one or more of these documents active.
> 
> 
> Antoin and Jim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext