Subject: [regext] important working group document administrivia

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:52:03 -0500

Antoin and I have been reviewing the status of our documents and there 
are two things we would like to propose to the working group.

First, it should always be the case that documents are formally accepted 
by the working group.  Initially, we have quite a set of documents 
listed in the charter.  We believe that since the charter was approved 
by the working group that those documents should be considered approved 
by the working group.  If anyone disagrees with this please do speak up.

Given that, when the new charter is approved by the IESG there will be a 
document renaming that needs to happen.  We will take as an action to 
work with each author individually to get documents resubmitted to the 
new working group so the name can be changed appropriately.  We will 
just get this done without a lot of fanfare on the mailing list.

If anyone objects to this please do speak up.

Second, as new proposals come along we think there should be a process 
for the working group to accept the document and agree to move it 
forward on the standards track.  We don’t want to make this difficult. 
  We just think that a simple acknowledgement of the status of the 
document is important.

What we’d like to propose is a process similar what is used by the 
DNSOP working group, which we believe that many if not most people here 
are familiar with.

Basically, we want to keep an open door policy with respect to 
presentations at meetings or on the mailing list for new work.  For 
example, Gustavo has requested time on our agenda at the next meeting 
for two of his documents that are not currently formally a part of the 
working group.  We would always give priority to IETF work but as long 
as there is time we would welcome the presentation of potential new 
work.

The chairs would then ask the working group for volunteers who would 
agree to review the work if it were accepted as a working group 
document.  The DNSOP group usually asks for at least 5 people to 
volunteer.  Since that has worked for them we are suggesting using that 
number also.

Once the working group agrees to accept the work then the chairs will 
fit the document into our working agenda of active documents.

In the specific case of Gustavo’s documents, if this process is 
accepted then the chairs will ask after Gustavo’s presentation for 
volunteers who will agree to review the documents.

We would appreciate if folks would comment on whether they support this 
approach or please do propose something different if you would prefer 
that.

Thanks,

Jim and Antoin

---

From: Rik Ribbers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:24:42 +0000

+1

On 15 Feb 2016, at 20:52, James Galvin <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

We would appreciate if folks would comment on whether they support this approach or please do propose something different if you would prefer that.

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:34:59 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:52 PM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [regext] important working group document administrivia
> 

[snip]

> approach or please do propose something different if you would prefer

Works for me.

Scott

---

From: Ulrich Wisser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:32:20 +0000

me like :-)

Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]> schrieb am Di., 16. Feb. 2016
um 13:35 Uhr:

> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
-- 
Ulrich Wisser
[email-masked]

---

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:07:10 +0000

+1

—

JG

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email-masked]

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Feb 16, 2016, at 2:24 AM, Rik Ribbers <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

+1

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

---

From: Roger D Carney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:53:16 +0000

Sounds good, thanks Jim and Antoin!

-----Original Message-----
From: regext [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Galvin
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: [regext] important working group document administrivia

Antoin and I have been reviewing the status of our documents and there are two things we would like to propose to the working group.

First, it should always be the case that documents are formally accepted by the working group.  Initially, we have quite a set of documents listed in the charter.  We believe that since the charter was approved by the working group that those documents should be considered approved by the working group.  If anyone disagrees with this please do speak up.

Given that, when the new charter is approved by the IESG there will be a document renaming that needs to happen.  We will take as an action to work with each author individually to get documents resubmitted to the new working group so the name can be changed appropriately.  We will just get this done without a lot of fanfare on the mailing list.

Second, as new proposals come along we think there should be a process for the working group to accept the document and agree to move it forward on the standards track.  We don’t want to make this difficult. 
  We just think that a simple acknowledgement of the status of the document is important.

What we’d like to propose is a process similar what is used by the DNSOP working group, which we believe that many if not most people here are familiar with.

Basically, we want to keep an open door policy with respect to presentations at meetings or on the mailing list for new work.  For example, Gustavo has requested time on our agenda at the next meeting for two of his documents that are not currently formally a part of the working group.  We would always give priority to IETF work but as long as there is time we would welcome the presentation of potential new work.

The chairs would then ask the working group for volunteers who would agree to review the work if it were accepted as a working group document.  The DNSOP group usually asks for at least 5 people to volunteer.  Since that has worked for them we are suggesting using that number also.

Once the working group agrees to accept the work then the chairs will fit the document into our working agenda of active documents.

In the specific case of Gustavo’s documents, if this process is accepted then the chairs will ask after Gustavo’s presentation for volunteers who will agree to review the documents.

Thanks,

Jim and Antoin

---

From: Maarten Bosteels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:42:40 +0000

+1

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:29:28 -0500

Thanks to those who have responded for your support.  There have not 
been any objections so we plan to move forward as described below.

Jim

On 15 Feb 2016, at 14:52, James Galvin wrote:

> First, it should always be the case that documents are formally 
> accepted by the working group.  Initially, we have quite a set of 
> documents listed in the charter.  We believe that since the charter 
> was approved by the working group that those documents should be 
> considered approved by the working group.  If anyone disagrees with 
> this please do speak up.
>
> Given that, when the new charter is approved by the IESG there will be 
> a document renaming that needs to happen.  We will take as an action 
> to work with each author individually to get documents resubmitted to 
> the new working group so the name can be changed appropriately.  We 
> will just get this done without a lot of fanfare on the mailing list.
>
> forward on the standards track.  We don’t want to make this 
> difficult.  We just think that a simple acknowledgement of the status 
> of the document is important.
>
> DNSOP working group, which we believe that many if not most people 
> here are familiar with.
>
> volunteer.  Since that has worked for them we are suggesting using 
> that number also.
>
> We would appreciate if folks would comment on whether they support 
> this approach or please do propose something different if you would 
> prefer that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim and Antoin