Registration Protocols Extensions
charter-ietf-regext-02

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2018-07-25 for -01-00)
No email
send info
I'm fine with approving this updated charter without external review. 

Adam's ballot comments would have made me think that the consultation with the AD has already happened. No request for text changes (the charter text is clear), but am I guessing correctly that you still want to see more details before telling the working group they're digging in the right place?

Warren Kumari Yes

Comment (2018-07-31 for -01-00)
No email
send info
... and I agree with everybody :-)

Spencer: "I'm fine with approving this updated charter without external review."
EKR, Alissa: "I also don't think including the date by which the charter will be reviewed is useful."
Adam: "These are technically not part of the RDAP or EPP protocols, and therefore are not in scope of the current charter; however, they are directly related to registry data, and therefore share the same communities of interest and expertise."

(Terry Manderson) Yes

Adam Roach Yes

Comment (2018-07-24 for -01-00)
No email
send info
This is a relatively minor change to the REGEXT charter, aimed at allowing the definition of, e.g., data formats for files that need to be generated by one organization and potentially read by another (see, e.g., https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-10 for an example of such a format). These are technically not part of the RDAP or EPP protocols, and therefore are not in scope of the current charter; however, they are directly related to registry data, and therefore share the same communities of interest and expertise.

Because this is a minor change, I think external review should be unnecessary.

Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-08-01 for -01-00)
No email
send info
I agree with all the agreeing. In particular, the new charter text could be interpreted much more broadly than the intent as I understand it from Adam’s ballot comments.

Aside from that, I don’t think this needs external review.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2018-07-31 for -01-00)
No email
send info
I agree with Alexey that the intent could be clearer.

I also don't think including the date by which the charter will be reviewed is useful. The previous version of this charter said it would be reviewed by the end of 2017, which didn't happen. Our standard process of making a decision about re-chartering/dormancy/closing when the WG completes its chartered deliverables seems sufficient; including a date that the WG doesn't actually abide by seems useless.

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-10-25 for -01-01)
No email
send info
Thanks for the 01-01 updates

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2018-08-01 for -01-00)
No email
send info
+1 to everybody: I don't think including the date is helpful and scope addition about formats could be much clearer. I was really wondering why this recharter is needed just looking at the diff.

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2018-07-30 for -01-00)
No email
send info
I am agreeing with the WG working on related formats, but I think the Charter is not sufficiently clear that that is what you have in mind. Maybe something better than "Internet related registries" should be used.

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Comment (2018-07-30 for -01-00)
No email
send info
I note that we just removed a time limit in IPSECME, so perhaps remove it here too?

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection