There has not been any discussion regarding additional changes to our
charter. As a result the chairs are going to interpret silence as
suggesting that folks are okay with the proposed revision.
In a separate thread we will start a 1 week working group last call on
the revised charter. We need to allow a few weeks for our Area Director
to review the proposed charter with the IESG and hopefully get it
approved so we can move on with new work at the next IETF meeting in
Montreal.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 15 Jun 2018, at 10:14, James Galvin wrote:
Thanks James for the proposed list of documents to add some context
around why the charter revision is being proposed.
The chairs are understanding that the major concern is the revision is
too broad. The final sentence, shown here for your convenience, seems
to be the issue:
The working group may also, in consultation with its responsible area
director, take on work related to the operation of Internet identifier
registries, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.
The chairs and the Area Director agree with all the concerns stated.
This is why the phrase “in consultation with its responsible area
director” was included in the sentence above.
We are interested in other suggestions for how to modify this sentence
to better scope our work.
The intent is to only pursue work related to the operation of Internet
identifier registries that use the EPP and RDAP protocols. If there
is a better way to express this, please to help us by proposing it.
If you think that saying EPP and RDAP is itself too broad, how would
you propose we express the work we want to do?
James’ list below is just the current list of possible work items.
They are representative of the kind of scope we are looking to
achieve.
Any help you can offer would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim
On 13 Jun 2018, at 12:03, Gould, James wrote:
Broadening the charter beyond EPP and RDAP would enable the WG to
take on the file format drafts that relate to the domain industry and
should involve the same REGEXT participants, which include:
1. Data Escrow
* Registry Data Escrow Specifications -
draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow
* Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping -
draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping
2. Bulk Data
* Data Set File Format - draft-gould-regext-dataset
—
JG
[cid:[email protected]]
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email protected]
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: regext <[email protected]> on behalf of Roger Carney
<[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:53 AM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
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]<mailto:[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
