+1
From: kowa...@denic.de <kowa...@denic.de> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 10:32 AM To: Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net>; Andrew (andy) Newton <a...@hxr.us>; James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com>; REGEXT Working Group <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Experimental Extensions (was Re: ONE WEEK REVIEW of FINAL proposed revised charter for REGEXT) +1 from me as well, WG should be able to work on experimental. On 29.04.25 16:29, Jasdip Singh wrote: +1 IIUC, the proposed change, “IETF consensus”, should help not circumvent IETF’s standardization process for an experimental work that has been adopted by regext, if it comes to that. Jasdip From: Andrew (andy) Newton <a...@hxr.us><mailto:a...@hxr.us> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM To: James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com><mailto:gal...@elistx.com>, REGEXT Working Group <regext@ietf.org><mailto:regext@ietf.org> Subject: [regext] Experimental Extensions (was Re: ONE WEEK REVIEW of FINAL proposed revised charter for REGEXT) 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/10TLzcVPK1JPZF09mHHGCDDn9ZsOGL9uuBfzbgX_KhXOvjMumZ_r3dIw2dvKnEQCrn2JfKYIehXppGXgyqECEGLK4UZLa_4QIuZlvMUMg_HasZAU6BtsBEzvijQ-pvTxALuhP_2u6rINlxTtjSvMUQfXP9Ag5hMZnkM-Jj0Vm-h4MtABaRXqRmJuvB2N1iWHD7c38oPAJrIRyof_GNSOl-Ml7KUJTnFJlHj_s-7txTBcGjVJzFt9c65arfyoyU3Yj5oPtkV1c4u-TAs7g6ClJQZc5Nc9ps7LoS1wb6kPIeFSX-fnPBpkkmCWqXnIQX8OL/https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1ZEqVSc28YoiFJKDKlXgBfLHUSpYKfS1OIIgz4aVBOq0%2Fedit%3Ftab%3Dt.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/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Y3AYw2JKR6sN2mAslzw84O7rH8cAnNGS4O3Txyv-_a3-vXB2x8LNTG8_wg7P4CLSOn4E_ua5RhFr0gNtjFO2-g9UcfKWmyrHRab7bNa0ofz-f4xKdHdjlvGAYl7LLRcQiIvYxALzCWlHC8e5TijKjGlYr0Tgi_RnybERZu_dhepF3BqVWJkEVlSAg2uo0qzTJ_Sr-SBY2hEYE1UNakzjJQS3pS1aPRzP7ThFn57k7_2HUf6swz5T3v3h0XpjF5UUQO8-PlIt7d56OstGryZ1skvURhGrEo95T9HNJpXH1e9AhREVR9Y9xbMxRfLKAQAG/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fregext%2Fabout%2F> > > 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<mailto:regext@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
