Med,

If the requirement outlined in the charter needs to be retroactively applied to 
draft-ietf-regext-epp-https with the objections of the editors, I request that 
we go through the exercise to update the charter to remove the troubling 
language below.  We need to get the charter back to meeting the description of 
“Minor reframing of Charter to better align with general pattern of OPS area 
Charters".


  *   New application transport mappings for EPP following relevant and 
appropriate IETF standards to address operational gaps for which at least one 
domain registry and at least one domain registrar have made a commitment to 
deploy (Standards Track or Experimental).

This language is not directly associated with addressing the goal of being 
motivated by real operational needs, since the term “commitment” is much too 
strong and comes with legal connotations that requires further legal review.  I 
don’t recommend any domain registry or domain registrar to provide a 
“commitment to deploy”.  We can adjust the language to meet the goal and have 
it applied to all working group documents.

It is not clear where this language originated from, what discussion occurred 
on the mailing list to support its addition, why its only applied to EPP 
transports, and what discussion occurred on the mailing list to retroactively 
applying it to an active working group document.  The editors of an active 
working group document that was adopted by a prior charter should not be 
surprised by material language that adds a new gating obligation.  Can you 
provide the clarifications on this?

Thanks,

 --

JG

[cid87442*[email protected]]

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[email protected]<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 5:07 AM
To: Mario Loffredo <[email protected]>, James Gould 
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [regext] Re: Request for clarification on the charter


Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Hi Mario/Jim,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

Let me remind that the reasoning for having such policy in the charter is to 
ensure that we are defining new mappings that are motivated by real operational 
needs.

Process-wise, consensus to adopt a document does not mean that the document 
will be necessary progressed to an RFC. Consensus to publish will typically be 
assessed during WGLC. Also, a WG may decide to adopt a doc, but decide later 
that it is better to park a spec , etc.

Now back to this specific document, the information you shared below is a great 
info to record in the document writeup to demonstrate how it adheres to the 
deployment policy in the charter.

FYI, we received comments during the IESG review of the QUIC draft on that same 
point. We managed to address it as I already had the required arguments 
gathered as part of my AD review (thanks to the authors).

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

De : Mario Loffredo <[email protected]>
Envoyé : mercredi 9 septembre 2026 10:38
À : Gould, James <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed 
INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc : [email protected]
Objet : Re: [regext] Re: Request for clarification on the charter



Hi,

please find my comments below.
Il 08/09/2026 16:35, Gould, James ha scritto:

I'm replying to my own message to answer the question "Should the new language 
be retroactively applied to existing working group documents 
(draft-ietf-regext-epp-https)?".  The answer to this question for 
draft-ietf-regext-epp-https should be "no", based on the following:



1. draft-ietf-regext-epp-https was adopted by REGEXT on 2/2025 based on an 
earlier charter (Charter 02).  A question was raised on the mailing list 
whether the charter's scope supported the transport drafts (EoH in 
draft-ietf-regext-epp-https) and EoQ in draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic), which was 
determined to be in-scope and the transport drafts were adopted.

2. The charter was updated to clarify that EoH and EoQ are in scope in Charter 
03, that was approved on 7/2026.

3. The new charter (Charter 04), approved on 9/2026, was described as "Minor 
reframing of Charter to better align with general pattern of OPS area 
Charters", where the language "New application transport mappings for EPP 
following relevant and appropriate IETF standards to address operational gaps 
for which at least one domain registry and at least one domain registrar have 
made a commitment to deploy (Standards Track or Experimental)" is a material 
change that adds a new obligation applicable to a multistakeholder governance 
model.

4. The "commitment to deploy" language is unique to the REGEXT charter and 
needs further review and discussion on the mailing list that is independent of 
the draft-ietf-regext-epp-https work.



Thanks,

[ML] I believe the phrase "New application transport mappings for EPP ..." 
applies more naturally when RegExt evaluates the adoption of additional EPP 
transport mappings. IMO, there is no indication that this specific revision of 
the charter was intended to reopen the previously reached consensus on EoH or 
to impose a new adoption criterion for an existing WG document.

Furthermore, EPP over HTTPS is not merely a hypothetical deployment model. 
Registro .it has operated an HTTPS-based EPP server since 2009, and .it 
registrars have used this transport approach for many years. Some of the 
operational considerations outlined in the draft stem from the experience 
gained over this period. Although the existing .it implementation slightly 
differs from draft-ietf-regext-epp-https — notably, when the HTTP session is 
established — it provides substantial operational evidence that both the 
registry and its registrars have accepted EPP over HTTPS as a viable deployment 
model.

Against that background, requiring a registrar to make a formal “commitment to 
deploy” merely because the charter language changed after adoption of the 
document would add little evidence of actual deployability. It would amount to 
imposing a recently introduced procedural formality on activities for which 
long-standing operational procedures and registrar acceptance already exist.



Best,

Mario

--

Dott. Mario Loffredo

Senior Technologist

Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”

Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)

National Research Council (CNR)

Address: Via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy

Phone: +39.0503153497

Web: 
http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1C-zTglyCKUw4YpNCxSZGQhzMmVpxPe_f2o-CKMEK72TjB_HDILPVL8DXKRui6jezT3Z5VFts2QB7ke8CbZMt16lUQ0YtAgOfDAgeTObzp2QNHXKVWFuaXotcw-dY6U4xkv9frMVsrcic2_dEOG5fLGmRYLn0IxZglk_3n8AtivXHpsYyHVa7c_FUXLQmZ5KBg5mlFsj4zC7ru3pu9jeRtPlfybnKsV-nvouPaAkTDGFMAfdXOHmdDW7eoTRv1daiJEk18VwIP_-4PpMF1HkgwOlxUU3lXmNumOm2UqXJsIg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo>

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to