I’m happy to provide some during the “admin” portion of our meeting for a discussion of this. If you want to kick this off that’s great too.
As co-Chair, I will observe only that if you want a “standards track” document then whatever discussion is happening or needs to happen in REGEXT is appropriate. In fact, if that results in delay, I would be inclined to lean on the side of that being a good thing since I would hope that means the group is looking at interoperability issues. If not, then that’s something we should address on a case by case basis. As far as the working group blessing something as “experimental” or “informational”, I’m not inclined to support that. I’ll remind folks that both EPP and RDAP extension registries are open, meaning anyone can publish a document describing their extension and get it listed. You don’t need any special permission. Of course, getting the working group to acknowledge it does mean the IETF gets change control, and perhaps that’s a desirable characteristic and thus adding this process option to how we work would be good thing. So, let’s plan to talk about it at IETF120. Thanks, Jim On 14 Jun 2024, at 6:22, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
