Subject: [regext] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-regext-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 09:37:23 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-regext-00-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-regext/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't object if doing it this way is the right thing to do, but I was
somewhat surprised to see no discussion of the forest of extensions being
considered as deliverables in the charter itself, but only as milestones.
The similarly-situated TRAM working group charter says "this work will
include", for instance (at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tram/charters/). 

Perhaps there are so many proposed extensions with such short timelines
that there's no reason to mention them as deliverables, but I wonder if
they fit into some number of categories that might be listed.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:53:41 +0530

> they fit into some number of categories that might be listed.

I do think doing it this way is the right thing to do.  The point here
is for this working group to look at proposed extensions to EPP and
RDAP, to judge which ones should be done as Standards Track RFCs, and
to handle those.  Any specific list of drafts in the charter itself
would be obsolete so quickly that it'd be silly to have them in it.
The only reason to do it would be if the IESG explicitly wants to
limit what the working group can do in this regard, and I don't think
that's a good idea.  Best to leave it to the working group and the
responsible AD.

Barry