Registration Protocols Extensions
charter-ietf-regext-02

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

(Barry Leiba) Yes

Comment (2016-02-03 for -00-00)
No email
send info
This is a rechartering of the eppext working group, to merge in RDAP follow-on work from the former "weirds" working group.  The eppext group will be closed when this charter is approved, and the eppext and weirds mailing lists will be forwarded to the new regext list.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Ben Campbell No Objection

Comment (2016-02-17 for -00-01)
No email
send info
I'm not sure what the following paragraph adds:

  "Extensions in both cases that seek the status of Internet standard are
   subject to more thorough review and open discussion within the IETF."

Is it a goal of this wg to push things to full standard? Or are we talking about anything on the standards track?

It would be nice if the milestones (or the text) contained descriptions of the work, not just draft short-names.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

Comment (2016-02-09 for -00-00)
No email
send info
I don't object if doing it this way is the right thing to do, but I was somewhat surprised to see no discussion of the forest of extensions being considered as deliverables in the charter itself, but only as milestones. The similarly-situated TRAM working group charter says "this work will include", for instance (at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tram/charters/). 

Perhaps there are so many proposed extensions with such short timelines that there's no reason to mention them as deliverables, but I wonder if they fit into some number of categories that might be listed.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2016-02-16 for -00-00)
No email
send info
Two comments:

- "The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
seeking standards track status." Urgh. That encourages folks to
keep coming with possibly crazy proposals. While that's not too
likely at first, over time the probability of that will, I think,
increase. It'd perhaps be better to bound this somehow, e.g. with
a date by which the WG needs to re-charter, e.g. "if not done by Jan 
2018, the a re-charter is needed," or maybe "The WG will need to 
re-charter when there are no current standards-track extensions
being developed" or something else.

- This wasn't clear to me:
"The working group will also identify the requirements for a
registration protocol where a third-party DNS provider is involved."
Almost all DNS queries involve 3rd parties. Can you clarify what's
meant? (It may be clear from the documents that I've not read,
but not from the charter.)

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

Comment (2016-02-17 for -00-01)
No email
send info
I do find the name of the WG strange: "Registration Protocols Extensions". Is there only one registration protocol available on this earth? But that is really a minor point.