Subject: [eppext] final charter description

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:09:35 -0500

Included in this message is the final charter description that has been 
previously agreed to by this working group.

What is missing are the milestones.  A follow up message will propose a 
draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group meeting (and 
here on the list of course).

I'm separating these parts so we focus discussion.

Jim

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:21:31 +0900

few comments on the proposed charter:

Proposed Charter
Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) Working Group

The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, Standard 69) is the
standard domain name provisioning protocol for top-level domain name
registries, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) requires all new generic top-level domain registries
to implement EPP.  To avoid many separate EPP extensions that provide
the same functions, it's important to coordinate and standardize EPP
extensions.

<MB>I would be more happy to not specifically talk about ICANN 
requirements for gTLD, but more in general for any registries, including 
cctlds.  I would just remove « and the Internet Corporation … to 
implement EPP ».
</MB>

The EPP Extensions (EPPEXT) working group completed its first goal of
creating an IANA registry of EPP extensions.  The registration process
of the registry is documented in RFC7451.  Extensions may be
registered for informational purposes as long as there is a published
specification that has been reviewed by a designated expert.

The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP, RFCs 7480-7484) is the
proposed standard for retrieving registration metadata from both
domain name and Regional Internet Registries.  Some registries are
using it now and many more are expected as ICANN moves towards
requiring it of generic top-level domain registries.

<MB>same comment here.  More over, timing data such as « using it 
now » does not survive well over time. Suggested change is to remove 
the last sentence.
</MB>

  To ensure
interoperable implementations it's important to coordinate and
standardize extensions and profiles to be used by registries.

Extensions in both cases that seek the status of Internet standard are
subject to more thorough review and open discussion within the IETF.

In addition, commonality may be discovered in related extensions,
especially EPP extensions listed on the EPP extension registry, for
which it would makes sense to merge them into a single standard
extension everybody agrees on.

The REGEXT working group is the home of the coordination effort for
standards track extensions.  The selection of extensions for standards
track shall incorporate the following guidelines.

1. Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
informational or experimental EPP extensions will follow the expert
review process as described in RFC7451 for inclusion in the EPP
extensions registry. These documents will not be part of the REGEXT
working group work or milestones. The working group may discuss or
advise on these documents.

2. Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for WG
adoption.  If accepted by the working group then the development of
the standard may proceed.

3. The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
seeking standards track status.  When there are no more proposals
for a standards track extension the working group will either close or
go dormant according to IETF rules.  The mailing list will remain open
and available for the use of the expert review process as described in
RFC7451.

The working group will focus initially on the backlog of EPP extensions.

<MB>The last paragraphs are really EPP focused. We already know that 
they are some RDAP extensions that need to be standardized. I think the 
text should reflect that.
</MB>

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:09, James Galvin wrote:

> Included in this message is the final charter description that has 
> been previously agreed to by this working group.
>
> What is missing are the milestones.  A follow up message will propose 
> a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group meeting 
> (and here on the list of course).
>
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:28:43 +0900

have another comment about charter: should topics like this 
(draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-00) be in scope of the new wg? 
if yes, then we may want to make it so.

Marc.

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> requirements for gTLD, but more in general for any registries, 
> including cctlds.  I would just remove « and the Internet 
> Corporation … to implement EPP ».
> </MB>
>
> they are some RDAP extensions that need to be standardized. I think 
> the text should reflect that.
> </MB>
>
>
>

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:31:26 -0500

A fresh look is always interesting.

These changes seem really good to me and I'm inclined to include them as 
an editorial change.  For Marc's last comment I would suggest changing 
"backlog of EPP extensions" to "backlog of EPP and RDAP extensions".

Any objections?

Jim

On 11/4/15 8:21 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> <MB>same comment here. More over, timing data such as « using it now »
> does not survive well over time. Suggested change is to remove the last
> sentence.
> </MB>
>
> To ensure
>  1.
>     Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
>  2.
>     Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for WG
>  3.
>     The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
>     a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group
>     meeting (and here on the list of course).
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     EppExt mailing list
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Rik Ribbers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:39:05 +0000

Jim,

one remark about the last sentence:

I think that the list of documents and milestones will determine the focus the WG. My suggestion is to remove the last line.

Gr,
RIk
	
> On 05 Nov 2015, at 10:09, James Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Included in this message is the final charter description that has been previously agreed to by this working group.
> 
> What is missing are the milestones.  A follow up message will propose a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group meeting (and here on the list of course).
> 
> <charter-description.txt>_______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:42:01 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EppExt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:31 PM
> To: Marc Blanchet
> Cc: eppext
> Subject: Re: [eppext] final charter description
> 

No objection - I concur.

Scott

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:43:39 +0900

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:39, Rik Ribbers wrote:

> I think that the list of documents and milestones will determine the 
> focus the WG. My suggestion is to remove the last line.

+1 good idea.

Marc.

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:44:56 -0500

For right now, I would say no.  This charter has been agreed to by the 
working group and is waiting for milestones to move forward.

Changing the scope would change the charter and I would recommend 
against this.

That's a process argument against.

Separately, I think this topic is different enough from "extensions" 
that it should itself be separate from this working group.  Just my 
opinion of course.  Would like to hear from others.

Jim

On 11/4/15 8:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>     including cctlds. I would just remove « and the Internet Corporation
>     … to implement EPP ».
>     </MB>
>
>         Included in this message is the final charter description that
>         has been previously agreed to by this working group.
>
>         What is missing are the milestones. A follow up message will
>         propose a draft set of milestones for discussion in the working
>         group meeting (and here on the list of course).
>

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:50:43 +0900

> opinion of course.  Would like to hear from others.

well, let me rephrase my point, and not concentrating on that specific 
draft. Is the charter strictly scoped to EPP and RDAP protocols (which 
seem to be), or is the scope about registration protocols (in which a 
bit larger scope would enable these initiatives to be in scope).  Yes, 
there is danger for too large scope. But I wanted to at least raise the 
awareness of the group before we restrict ourselves to RDAP and EPP.

Marc.

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:52:09 -0500

The last sentence is there to ensure the WG works with what is in front 
of it now, i.e., the current known list of drafts describing extensions.

It is that sentence that is driving the milestones, not the other way 
around.

I'm not inclined to agree with this change unless the working group 
really wants to stand up and demonstrate a significant consensus to do 
so.  We have already made a decision and changing that decision should 
require a significant consensus.

Jim

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:56:02 -0500

On 11/4/15 8:50 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>     For right now, I would say no. This charter has been agreed to by
>     the working group and is waiting for milestones to move forward.
>

Thanks for this.

What do others think?

Jim

>         |Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
>         informational or experimental EPP extensions will follow the
>         expert review process as described in RFC7451 for inclusion in
>         the EPP extensions registry. These documents will not be part of
>         the REGEXT working group work or milestones. The working group
>         may discuss or advise on these documents. |
>
>         2.
>
>         |Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for
>         WG adoption. If accepted by the working group then the
>         development of the standard may proceed. |
>
>         3.
>
>         |The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
>         for a standards track extension the working group will either
>         close or go dormant according to IETF rules. The mailing list
>         will remain open and available for the use of the expert review
>         process as described in RFC7451. |
>
>         |Included in this message is the final charter description that
>         has been previously agreed to by this working group. What is
>         missing are the milestones. A follow up message will propose a
>         draft set of milestones for discussion in the working group
>         meeting (and here on the list of course). I'm separating these
>         parts so we focus discussion. Jim
>         EppExt mailing list [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext |
>
>         [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:05:23 +0100

James Galvin <[email-masked]> 2015-11-05 02:56
> >awareness of the group before we restrict ourselves to RDAP and EPP.
 
I agree with you that process-wise we should stick to the more or less
currently agreed charter focused purely on EPP/RDAP extensions
(even if I'm in the minority section of people not seeing the benefit
of the merge, but not opposing it)

However, what Jacques's draft proposes comes from a real problem that
is spoken about in various fora (in dnsop a little ago, various blog
posts from Cloudflare, etc…), but it does not seem there is a specific
working group or such where it should be discussed and worked on.

The closest WG to discuss that would still seems to be REGEXT for me,
especially because, for example, James Gould verification EPP
extension could be also a tool to achieve the goal described above.

So in short, even if the charter sticks to EPP/RDAP extensions, there
should be discussion somewhere, and I would say preferably here in the
absence of better choice, on
the problems that this specific draft tackles.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:07:22 +0900

> What do others think?

I'm the guilty party who put that last sentence in there. The intent
was to allow the working group to focus on the EPP work it had before
it and not let the new RDAP work side track that. It maybe that this
sentence has been overcome by events and doesn't need to be in the
charter any more. So I'm fine with removing it.

Inclusion of things that are DNR and RIR related but not EPP or RDAP
is probably not a bad idea. There are likely to be few of them, and if
any of one of them becomes burdensome then the IETF can simply spin
off another WG specifically for it.

-andy

---

From: Jacques Latour <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:16:51 +0000

I think we should consider the scope for DNS Operator registration protocols, like described in draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-00 and future development.

Jack

On 2015-11-05, 10:50 AM, "EppExt on behalf of Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

For right now, I would say no. This charter has been agreed to by the working group and is waiting for milestones to move forward.

Changing the scope would change the charter and I would recommend against this.

Separately, I think this topic is different enough from "extensions" that it should itself be separate from this working group. Just my opinion of course. Would like to hear from others.

well, let me rephrase my point, and not concentrating on that specific draft. Is the charter strictly scoped to EPP and RDAP protocols (which seem to be), or is the scope about registration protocols (in which a bit larger scope would enable these initiatives to be in scope). Yes, there is danger for too large scope. But I wanted to at least raise the awareness of the group before we restrict ourselves to RDAP and EPP.

Marc.

Jim

Marc.

Proposed Charter

To ensure

1.

2.

3.

The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
seeking standards track status. When there are no more proposals
for a standards track extension the working group will either
close or
go dormant according to IETF rules. The mailing list will remain
open
and available for the use of the expert review process as
described in
RFC7451.

Jim

EppExt mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

________________________________

EppExt mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext