Hi all,
When I look at the DNSOP working group I see items like CDS
bootstrapping and generalized NOTIFY are nearing completion. They have
even spun off another working group recently. Comparing that to the
progress here, it seems that in REGEXT we don’t make as much progress.
Given the different perspectives, I’d like to propose a change in our
working group process inspired by mailmaint [1], sidrops [2], and idr
[3]. The basic proposal is to adopt the SIDROPS/IDR thresholds but with
a lower bar for all RDAP extensions: before publication on the standards
track there must be at least one interoperable server and client
implementation documented with an implementation report published on the
working group wiki [4]. Otherwise the extension may be published as
experimental with the proviso that it could be put back on the standards
track once interoperability between a client and a server is documented.
And in special circumstances, the chairs could waive this requirement.
Note that in the SIDROPS and IDR examples above, there's nothing in the
working group charter that requires these interoperable implementations.
We might be able to do this in REGEXT without a charter change, too.
Following their lead, we would publish this proposal to the REGEXT wiki [4].
-andy
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mailmaint/about/
[2] https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/sidrops
[3] https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr
[4] https://wiki.ietf.org/group/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
