Thanks for the clarification, Roger. The file formats seem like appropriate work to me. That said, the wording of the proposed charter seemed to indicate to me there was a broader motivation. If there is such, it be best if it were stated.
-andy On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Roger D Carney <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. > > > > The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested > wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG > and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to > exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, > change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on > relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP > protocols.” > > > > Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is > what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for > this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. > > > > I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my > thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. > > > > To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At > one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current > Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing > the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, > Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion > of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes > to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp > sites to get this information from and different registrars request the > information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed > that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do > not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with > the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. > > > > > > Thanks > > Roger > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Roger D Carney <[email protected]> > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Good Morning, > >> > >> > >> > >> I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if > >> "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was > >> changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name > >> registration systems..."? > > > > What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working > groups? > > > > -andy > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
