Re: [regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

James, Roger,

As far as I can recollect, the remark Jim made during IETF97 were not specific to the reseller drafts, but to all active drafts we were discussing at that time.
We had 3 "disputed” drafts where the WG could not decide if they were sufficiently broad to have WG consensus on needing Standards Track handling:
The verification, bundling and reseller drafts were disputed because it was questioned if we were trying to standardize a "best generic way” to solve this, or if we were merely trying to standardize what was currently implemented by only a few registries to comply to their own use case. As per our charter, that would not justify Standards Track and WG effort.

For the reseller drafts in particular, only pragmatically complying to requirements for ICANN regulation was considered enough for some, but not generic enough for others.
So we made the remark that only complying to a minimal set of requirements would not justify Standards Track and WG effort, so the reseller drafts would be only informational describing an extension implemented by some to comply to future non-mandaory ICANN regulation if this path was followed.

After IETF97 the path forward was discussed on the mailinglist with this in mind.
Changing the reseller drafts to a more generic solution of "Organizations” that could be used for tagging resellers but also any other 3th party domain liaison did make them eligible for WG effort and standards track. There was consensus on the mailinglist after IETF97 that this would be the path forward, and the authors have rewritten their documents that are now eligible to be on our milestone list. So the reseller documents will be deleted from the milestones, but the organization documents will replace them.


- --
Antoin Verschuren

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






Op 19 mei 2017, om 18:45 heeft Gould, James <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

> Roger,
> 
> Yes, I saw that reference as well, but I’m not sure whether a decision was made to not dedicate WG effort on these drafts.  As a co-author of the drafts, work has continued to change them from reseller to organization based on the IETF-98 meeting and based on the discussions on the list.  Jim, can you comment on whether such a decision was made?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —
> 
> JG
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> [e-mail]
> 
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 
> VerisignInc.com
> 
> From: regext <[e-mail]> on behalf of Roger Carney <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
> Thanks for looking Jim. I am referring to this snipet (and memoryJ) from the reseller discussion in the minutes:
> “Jim Galvin (as Chair): WG has two roles: a) create extensions that several people require, and standardize those b) just register the extension with IANA - path to go forward in this case would be b) since it does not seem to be applicable to a broad community”
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Roger
> 
> 
> From: Gould, James [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 11:01 AM
> To: Roger D Carney <[e-mail]>; Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones
> 
> Roger,
> 
> I don’t see the decision you outline in the minutes from IETF-97 ( https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/minutes/minutes-97-regext-00 ).  Do you know where that decision was captured?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —
> 
> JG
> 
> <image002.png>
> 
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> [e-mail]
> 
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 
> VerisignInc.com
> 
> From: regext <[e-mail]> on behalf of Roger Carney <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:01 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
> Thanks Jim/Antoin for working through all of these documents.
> 
> I think these updates look good, except for a question on the reseller documents. As I mentioned on list back in March, I thought in Seoul we decided to review and comment but to not dedicate WG effort to these drafts?
> 
> As far as the bundling and idn drafts, I have not followed these with too much intensity so I will defer to others on these documents.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Roger
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 8:41 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [regext] Proposed Changes to Milestones
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext