Hi Antoin and Jorge, On Mon, 15 Jun 2026, at 14:40, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > Dear WG, > > Apologies for the delay, but the chairs had a difficult decision to > make about this adoption request. > The WG participants had many question that don’t seem related to the > work that still needs to be done, but more on the process and the > current state of the document. > We have 3 clear in favour of adopting the work, 3 not opposing but with > questions about the scope of the work, and 1 objection due to missing > XML in the current incomplete document which is actually part of the WG > work yet to come. > > The verdict of the 2 chairs (Jorge and Antoin) is that there is > appetite for this work that the current document may not yet fully > cover. > We therefor want to adopt this work with some advice and guidance below. > > With this message the chairs ask the authors to submit version 00 of a > working group document, that is the same as the current document, using > the following pre-approved draft name: > > draft-ietf-regext-epp-same-entity > > During this adoption request, no-one has volunteered yet to be a > document shepherd for this document. > The chairs want to ask the authors to search for a document shepherd, > or if anyone still wants to volunteer to reach out to the authors.
I am happy to shepherd this document. > Work can begin as soon as the 00 is published. > Looking at the amount of work, the milestone for this document will be > September 2027. > > Then for some guidance: > > -First of all, the scope of this work is quite ambitious compared to > what we normally do in this WG. It is not only about EPP commands for > specific domains or variants, but on the general concept of > provisioning multiple products under 1 service. > This is a difficult provisioning concept for any product, not just > domain names, and the chairs have some concern that we might not have > that expertise in our working group. > We would advise to seek the necessary expertise and address that issue > first. Perhaps we need a specific document first on what same entity > means, how it works and what processes need to be supported in addition > to provisioning of single product services before we create any EPP > extensions. > -Adoption of work does not mean the document automatically makes it to > WGLC. One outcome may be that we cannot reach consensus defining a same > entity principle. > -Only after we reach agreement that all aspects of a same entity > principle are met, we can start thinking of what that means to > definitions or XML schemas of how to handle all those aspects in EPP. > It makes no sense to start inventing the solution before we created the > problem statement or requirements. > -Keep in mind that a generic solution should work for any provisioning > of same entities, and not focus on domain variants as the primary goal > which is policy. > -We need to keep specific policy out of the technical discussion of how > to provision same entity products, but it’s inevitable that there is > some key guidance to local policy that may or may not work for a same > entity principle. > Think of processes that need to be defined and supported by a policy, > or specific identifiers that need to follow specific uniqueness > requirements that needs to be supported by a policy. > The 2 chairs will carefully monitor that specific requirements or > policy of specific registries do not influence the general > applicability, definitions or descriptions of the same entity principle > and its EPP processes. This sounds like the right approach to me. G. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
