Re: EPP extensions working group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Daley [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:40 PM
> To: Gould, James
> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group
> 
> On 30/07/2013, at 3:27 AM, "Gould, James" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Jay,
> >
> > I believe that your additional criteria might overly filter the
> candidate
> > set of extensions.  There are clear standard track extensions
> including
> > draft-tan-epp-launchphase and draft-obispo-epp-idn that could go
> through
> > as individual submissions as long as an AD is willing to take them
> based
> > on their maturity and based on the discussions that have already
> occurred
> > on the provreg list.  There are a large set of extensions that have
> been
> > and are in the process of being built that could be of general
> interest.
> > If this working group is meant to be "short lived" and to handle
> initially
> > the low hanging fruit, then certainly it could take on the extensions
> that
> > are primed for standards track like draft-tan-epp-launchphase and
> > draft-obispo-epp-idn.  I am not sure if these two extensions alone
> are
> > enough to form a working group, since they could be individual
> > submissions.
> 
> As I understood it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, this is
> a two-step process.  Step one is to prove the efficacy of the WG by
> taking some already well developed ideas through to conclusion and step
> two is then for a longer term WG to take a more strategic approach of
> creating standards where we would otherwise be doing things in
> different ways.
> 
> I don't think it takes a long list to achieve step one but what is does
> take is engagement of the community interested in this and to me that
> will not be achievable, and may in fact be damaged, by starting with
> drafts that are proprietary and have not been discussed much.

Something to consider: documents that are currently proprietary or otherwise not in I-D format may well have been implemented and used far more broadly than those that exist as I-Ds. If there is a commitment to release the specification(s) to the community they may be worth considering.

As of right now this is only a one-step process. Pete hasn't agreed to a second step. I think you're right about the goal of the first step.

Scott
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg