Thank you Scott. Your description is precisely what the Chairs are seeking to achieve with this discussion, which will then be brought to the working group for action.
Jim On 13 Jul 2026, at 14:10, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > What is needed to move these documents forward? > > We need the editors of all three drafts to get in one room at the same time > and first agree on the set of missing features for which one or more solution > proposal drafts are needed. Once there's agreement on the needed features, > they need to look at all three drafts and determine how well they address > those needed features. Duplication must be removed. Conflict must be > resolved. Any draft that fails to describe a needed feature can be either > rolled into one of the other drafts, or work can be stopped on a draft, or > new drafts can be proposed. The editors need to agree on a plan for drafts > that address the missing features, and that plan needs to be shared with the > working group for review and approval. > > Scott > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Galvin <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 11:44 AM >> To: REGEXT Working Group <[email protected]> >> Subject: [regext] Re: regarding rdap-extensions, rdap-versioning, rdap-x- >> media-type >> >> To the principals listed below, please confirm if you wish to be present for >> the >> discussion the Chairs are trying to organize. >> >> To everyone in the working group, the question the Chairs need to answer is, >> “What is needed to move these documents forward?” It may help to think of >> this as a pre-working-group-last-call question. >> >> For anyone who has a question, concern, or a position regarding these >> documents, please do send a note to the list with your statement. >> >> One email message per person, please. Do not respond to each other. >> >> The Chairs will review all messages and frame the discussion to be had and >> propose either a consensus or a specific question for consideration after the >> IETF. Again, the goal is to finalize these documents so we can quickly move >> forward a number of other documents that are dependent on them. >> >> >> LOGISTICALLY, it seems that Wednesday morning is not going to work for our >> ad hoc meeting. Best bets are currently Monday Session III (2-4pm timeslot) >> or in the evening on Monday or Tuesday. It would be helpful if the >> principals >> would indicate their availability in those times. >> >> >> Thanks to all. See you next week in person. >> >> Jorge, Antoin, Jim >> >> >> On 10 Jul 2026, at 18:06, James Galvin wrote: >> >>> The Chairs have received requests both on list and privately to please help >> facilitate finding a consensus as to how to proceed with these three >> documents. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions/ >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type/ >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning/ >>> >>> It does seem that there is an impasse, which is unfortunate. However, The >> Chairs remain ever hopeful that we will find a path forward. >>> >>> What we propose is to get the principals together while we are all present >>> in >> Vienna. The Chairs will prepare an agenda and review concerns and >> preferences among the principals. The objective is for the Chairs to be able >> to identify the rough consensus, if not full consensus, in the room. >>> >>> The Chairs will provide a summary of the discussion to the list and assert >> the identified consensus for review by the working group. we will be looking >> for objections from other working group members and, of course, ask that if >> you object you provide a technical explanation with new information to >> support it. >>> >>> The goal is to finalize these documents, or to indicate explicit next steps >>> to >> be completed that will finalize these documents. They have been on our >> milestone list for years and worse they are about two years overdue. >>> >>> The only meeting slot that we have available to do this is Wednesday >> morning, 22 July, in the first time slot of the day 9am-11am local time. Our >> AD has offered the IESG meeting room for this discussion and it is currently >> reserved for us. Sorry folks, there is no remote participation available >> but we >> believe this will be okay as we will be reporting to the working group for >> the >> final decision. >>> >>> Although anyone is welcome to join, the principals the Chairs would like to >> be present for this discussion are as follows. >>> >>> Jim Gould >>> Tom Harrison >>> Paweł Kowalik >>> Mario Loffredo >>> Andy Newton >>> Jasdip Singh >>> >>> We should appreciate if those on that list would indicate if they are >> available for this discussion. As long as we have a quorum, as determined at >> the discretion of the Chairs and the AD, we will have the discussion and >> report to the mailing list. >>> >>> If for some reason this meeting cannot happen, then the Chairs will >> organize an interim meeting in the weeks following the IETF. Of course, we’d >> prefer not to do this so please do try to accommodate this meeting in your >> busy schedules. >>> >>> Thanks to all! >>> >>> Jorge, Antoin, and Jim >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
