[regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones

["James Galvin" <[e-mail]>]

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   These drafts have been replaced by draft-ietf-regext-org and 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