Re: [regext] Interest in Drafts?

[Andrew Newton]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Antoin Verschuren  wrote:
> Dear working group,
>
> Scott has sent this question to the mailinglist almost a month ago, and so 
> far there has not been one reaction.
>
> The chairs believe that the RDAP drafts Scott suggested fall within the 
> charter of this working group, as RDAP extensions are part of our charter.
> But we do need sufficient participation for review for us to take documents 
> onboard.
> That’s not only true for these documents, but for all documents already in 
> our charter.
> When we rechartered, we had sufficient voiced support for review of 
> documents, but it seems not all subjects share the same interest over time.
> No interest in a specific solution also needs advise on why it’s not needed 
> or a bad idea.
> So I have a number of questions for you:
>
> 1. Do we have any volunteers to review these RDAP documents?

I've actually reviewed one of them already, and I can review the other.

> 2. Could we identify the organizations that have or are implementing RDAP so 
> we can motivate them in participating if they don’t already?
>
> 3. Could we make a list of implementations, published/intended policy 
> proposals and RDAP toolkits?
>
> 3. If you are aware of RDAP implementers or policy reviewers not aware of 
> this working group, could you please motivate them in participating?

I thought a lot of this information was already collected in the
RegOps workshops. Maybe we should ask them for it.

-andy

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Interest in Drafts?

[Antoin Verschuren]

Dear working group,

Scott has sent this question to the mailinglist almost a month ago, and so far 
there has not been one reaction.

The chairs believe that the RDAP drafts Scott suggested fall within the charter 
of this working group, as RDAP extensions are part of our charter.
But we do need sufficient participation for review for us to take documents 
onboard.
That’s not only true for these documents, but for all documents already in our 
charter.
When we rechartered, we had sufficient voiced support for review of documents, 
but it seems not all subjects share the same interest over time.
No interest in a specific solution also needs advise on why it’s not needed or 
a bad idea.
So I have a number of questions for you:

1. Do we have any volunteers to review these RDAP documents?

For us to do a good job in progressing existing and adopting new documents, we 
need reviewers and expert advise.
We realize that this is a small working group and most of us only concentrate 
on issues at hand we encounter ourselves.
For us to take on RDAP documents since we rechartered, I have the following 
questions:

2. Could we identify the organizations that have or are implementing RDAP so we 
can motivate them in participating if they don’t already?

3. Could we make a list of implementations, published/intended policy proposals 
and RDAP toolkits?

3. If you are aware of RDAP implementers or policy reviewers not aware of this 
working group, could you please motivate them in participating?

It’s needles to say that by the time your organization needs to implement the 
products of this working group, the time to complain about improper design has 
passed, and we hope you can convince your staff and management that the time to 
invest in proper design is now, before you start implementing at scale.

If we fail do do proper review within this working group, the risk is that the 
early adopters will make individual submissions for the protocol adjustments 
they need without consulting the needs of others in this field for the future, 
and would give us much more work afterwards to restore, or even failure of or 
criticism on our industry diversity.

Regards,

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392






Op 12 jan. 2017, om 19:36 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott  
het volgende geschreven:

> Is anyone interested in reviewing a pair of drafts that I shared on-list a 
> few weeks ago? Both address gaps in RDAP functionality and could actually be 
> useful in production environments:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag/
> 
> My team has working prototypes up and running and we are very interested in 
> your feedback. If there's interest we'd like to ask the WG to consider them 
> for adoption.
> 
> Scott
> 
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] Interest in Drafts?

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

Is anyone interested in reviewing a pair of drafts that I shared on-list a few 
weeks ago? Both address gaps in RDAP functionality and could actually be useful 
in production environments:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fregly-regext-rdap-search-regex/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag/

My team has working prototypes up and running and we are very interested in 
your feedback. If there's interest we'd like to ask the WG to consider them for 
adoption.

Scott

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext