[regext] elevating draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis and draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis

James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <galvin@elistx.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C889B3A00D9 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:36:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=elistx-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 plfKccM_Xvc7 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF983A005D for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id b144so13404515qkc.13 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:36:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=elistx-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dy0B9QZ6EDx2dtl4wyafNQcRlHVws6ZvVDOv2MGaJZQ=; b=xULKKQBY61AuWON/rKvc4vq93ifMgdt+IUm/cumI3cwNoM/ld7z+YFYcxsT3KLVfvV bkdZSWnXqTV/qU48xDhU7MiNe14/fquqWI4CenNYh5Kw2x9HU2Wnpf9meMV4jui240Y+ B98yI1e1nhZKZJFFIVzseiu6Fw2UdRmcPFphFpO3xav/qTR+HQv0CdsrhMJXehD80f5X 8ic4ACesoIU+EO1gKbiHKTavGP6F+BqWWJLH0HFpmsnpgN/bZWN+SW1tTyljLseQKovJ 0n84dCHOchKvNw6nOi9dA8ib4Y1s1fkygIt19I8JFAAmHWQ7TaPZ09jz4ZcrBueAxRqn +c9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dy0B9QZ6EDx2dtl4wyafNQcRlHVws6ZvVDOv2MGaJZQ=; b=ajQi4d22Kn4jgKeBhVJ8tp/9nIpkx/LUk0FztC0wyCVnTjXDLcERONy+I1m2lozObD i8ONbjaHO4RwNgQD/V7zUqOPkYaa7LzQ1S5YZOMMkED/tyBvEbpaBCIPYSfC/GwG6CyF Kj/0V1cFeebwdzVQSRLP1fzZ6K/McjTrCDNuf2PTj1cEjhL0y+QtqD43OcWoRahyaWei A7sm0Akf7HtPdDCz2l/f4T62iy2R3XlG+a8K1ricqAknDd/qTH/lnMPLlkA9lTrWFQWN gg8I5yXMb+SG6VkRBzJRKGjiXAmL5Q6QeUwGdCLMAHNoo2Beol3GRm4L95CuFTbuAtGV UQSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hXvJBzUMx/TLbDAmKfFxfPllz5vXxcF7Dpuj3S0dLlsrgIZ0a QWd9kKPJidikHFY66MzyTkxl05l+1vn+7VkZ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxK3upuK9h1Dxl3LghiP2bBI6LCIFzekWrJpHicJkfb/sYBCHiaO4k0oz5bO/3ybf4vUQJ0dg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:10b7:: with SMTP id h23mr8674444qkk.249.1607366180665; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:36:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.110] ([2601:154:c202:9d20:749b:76aa:f08b:ff20]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id k41sm4182078qtc.23.2020.12.07.10.36.19 for <regext@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:36:20 -0800 (PST)
From: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
To: Registration Protocols Extensions WG <regext@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:36:56 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <D19B4DBF-80D3-4A71-9043-4182A98F956E@elistx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/fpXB-tua7VABAQEKLt7hCejo3x4>
Subject: [regext] elevating draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis and draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 18:36:24 -0000

To all working group members,

As you know the following two documents have passed through working 
group last call and been submitted to the IESG for publication.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis/

Unfortunately, after the submission it was discovered there was some 
miscommunication between the Chairs, authors, and shepherd.  
Specifically, the intention was to elevate these two documents from 
being Proposed Standards to being Internet Standards.

This is a significant step in the IETF.  There are a few extra 
commitments from the working group that are important before we submit a 
document for a change in status.  You’ll find this discussed in more 
detail in the following RFC:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6410/?include_text=1

What this means to us as a working group is the following.

1. It must be apparent that the working group reviewed these documents 
with a standards status elevation in mind.  While this is mentioned on 
the Wiki page for the document 
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/regext/wiki/rdapfeaturetables), this working 
group does not ordinarily use the Wiki so it’s not clear how many 
working group members would have noticed this.

It’s also true that this elevation in status has been mentioned on the 
mailing list:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/TVPbyM0HXd0lrc7VFUNuioTmDp4/ 
(rfc7482bis - September 2019)

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/j8jM-Elo_kAYeOoKFLf2K3op_hY/ 
(rfc7483bis - January 2020)

Those were singular messages from some time ago with no discussion on 
the mailing list so, again, it’s not clear how many working group 
members would have noticed this.

2. The working group last call for both documents did not call out the 
elevation in standards status.  This is important since we have to make 
sure the working group members are fully aware of what they are 
approving.

3. The shepherd write-up for each document has additional requirements 
that are intended to call out to the IESG and more broadly the IETF that 
the documents are being elevated.

In summary, as these are the first documents this working group is 
seeking to advance in standards status, we missed a few administrative 
details.  We just need to correct this and then these documents can 
proceed.

The chairs are going to take the following actions.

1. We are going to pull the documents back from the IESG to the working 
group.

2. We will re-issue a last call for each document asking explicitly 
about the elevation in standards status.  We will require that many 
working group members approve this.  We will be looking for “+1” 
from as many working group members as possible.  Please do take the time 
to respond.

3. We will ask the document shepherds to revise their write-ups in 
preparation for a successful working group last call.

4. Finally, we will advance the documents again to the IESG.

We are sorry for the confusion.  Please note, the last call will be an 
extended one because of the holiday season.  Please watch for the 
announcement in the next day or so.

Thanks to all!

Antoin and Jim