Hi all,
The current wording of the proposed charter excludes the working group from working on
experimental extensions, which has been offered as a solution to move some documents
forward in the wg. IMHO, disallowing experimentation runs counter to the "running
code" nature of IETF work and takes away from the tools the working group has to
create interoperable specifications.
The proposed charter has the following paragraphs:
Proprietary documented extensions and individual submissions of
informational or
experimental extensions will follow the expert review process as
described in the
appropriate extensions registry. These extension documents will not be
part of the
REGEXT working group work or milestones. The working group may discuss
or advise
on these documents.
Extensions that seek standards track status can be suggested for WG
adoption. If accepted by the working group then the development of the
standard may proceed.
I propose the following change to the second paragraph:
Extensions that seek IETF consensus can be suggested for WG
adoption. If accepted by the working group then the development of the
standard may proceed.
This change does not exclude experimental status if the working group decides
that is a good path for a document. It also draws the distinction between those
documents accepted by the working group in contrast to the proprietary
extensions mentioned in the first paragraph.
What do people think?
-andy, not the responsible AD for this wg
On 4/28/25 09:48, James Galvin wrote:
Two weeks ago the Chairs distributed a proposed revised charter and opened a
review period for the working group. That review period closed yesterday.
Many thanks to those who took the time to review the proposal.
Today begins a one week review of the final, proposed revised charter.
Everyone should have access and can still leave comments or suggest changes to
the text. The review closes on Sunday, 4 May 2025, close of business
everywhere.
Here is the current, FINAL proposed revised charter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZEqVSc28YoiFJKDKlXgBfLHUSpYKfS1OIIgz4aVBOq0/edit?tab=t.0
In consultation with our Area Director, all the comments were reviewed. Almost
all were accepted as is, a few were accepted in principle and the proposed text
was revised to accommodate. There were a couple that were rejected and those
should have gotten a comment sent to them regarding why the change was rejected.
For ease of reference, here is the current charter of the REGEXT working group:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/regext/about/
Please note, this revised proposed charter is still subject to IESG review.
While this version may represent our consensus, there may still be questions
and comments to be resolved from the IESG.
Thanks again to all who reviewed the proposal. The Chairs believe our Charter
overall is better now than it was and hopefully you agree.
Antoin and Jim
_______________________________________________
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
