Re: EPP extensions working group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Peter Koch
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:58 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] EPP extensions working group
> 
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:41:54PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > In the interest of trying to move this forward, how about these three
> drafts as a starting point?
> >
> > draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
> gieben-epp-keyrelay/)
> > draft-obispo-epp-idn (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-obispo-
> epp-idn/)
> > draft-tan-epp-launchphase (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-
> epp-launchphase/)
> 
> {disclosure: my employer does not use EPP, but I have some interest in
>  the topic addressed by the first draft}
> 
> playing devil's advocate again, what would be the purpose of the
> organisational
> overhead of forming a WG here?  I understand the change control issue
> might
> be obvious in all three cases, which may speak in favor of publishing
> the
> documents in the IETF stream, even though the IETF URN registry only
> says
> 'specification required'. Is there an incentive to get these on
> standards track
> (which still wouldn't require a WG)?

My take: the small number of documents probably don't merit the overhead of forming a working group. When I talked to Pete in Berlin he used words like "short duration" and "won't meet formally" - which I interpret to mean "minimize the overhead". I believe he is willing to entertain the idea of helping us move the documents along with the benefit of a little working group process iff we can keep the amount of required overhead small. He'll hold his nose if it helps us get the job done.

There is a larger issue here, though - the registry development task that Patrik mentioned here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/current/msg07420.html

This is more challenging than moving a small number of existing drafts through the standards track. Sure, people can write individual submissions to describe proposals and one might actually rise to the top, but this is a task for which working group discussion will probably be beneficial.

I don't know if Pete agrees. I plan to ask him.

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