Hello Alexander, On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, at 03:25, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: > Jim, > > thanks for posting that - i've made my choices. > > <rant>
For the record, I share most if not all of your rant Alexander. 1) I am sad to see this working group and the IETF being a rubberstamp for documents discussed elsewhere and coming here explicitely as stated just to get an RFC number. This is wrong on so many levels and could even be seen as an abuse of IETF. I do not think the working group should put time and energy on those documents. In most cases they can as well be an individual submission or just stay as a specification added to the EPP Extension registry. If people decided to work on them in other venues, then they should just finish "standardization" of them in those other venues, switching to the IETF at the last minute just for an RFC number is certainly not the expected way to work. The aim of the working group in my mind is to try defining extension that works for the widest use cases possible accross many registrars and registries. The community is not so big so splitting work in many venues even lowers the chance the results will have enough reviews to make them as generic and globally useful as possible. Like Alexander stated, the impact of each specification (does it concern one specific case or is it useful for all EPP servers in the world) could or should be taken into account when deciding to work on X instead of Y. Otherwise we get only a very thin short time frame gain of having RFC for numerous "standardized" extensions where no real consensus will exist on them, some will overlap or even contradict themselves which will in the long term make the current situation regarding deployed extensions on servers even more complex that it is nowadays (and it is complex enough), hence making registrars even more complicated which in turn constrains registries to not be able to easily run new services because registrars will not implement them, etc. 2) I would have much prefered seeing people coming on this exact mailing-list and stating that they will support such and such documents by promising to work on them (reviewing, implementing, etc.) instead of an anonymous poll done on a remote site, whose results are difficult to interpret (is it interest in something being done? willingness to work on it? just showing that is seems to be important without any real interest in it? etc.). That would have shown real community support for some documents and provide a clear proof of interests later on for shepherd reviews and IETF-wide LC. For all these reasons I voluntarily did not participate in this polling, even if I clearly have my opinion on which documents are most useful to work on than others and which should get the WG attention or not. That is the end of my rant. -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
