Subject: [regext] elevating draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis and draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:36:56 -0500

To all working group members,

As you know the following two documents have passed through working 
group last call and been submitted to the IESG for publication.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis/

Unfortunately, after the submission it was discovered there was some 
miscommunication between the Chairs, authors, and shepherd.  
Specifically, the intention was to elevate these two documents from 
being Proposed Standards to being Internet Standards.

This is a significant step in the IETF.  There are a few extra 
commitments from the working group that are important before we submit a 
document for a change in status.  You’ll find this discussed in more 
detail in the following RFC:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6410/?include_text=1

What this means to us as a working group is the following.

1. It must be apparent that the working group reviewed these documents 
with a standards status elevation in mind.  While this is mentioned on 
the Wiki page for the document 
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/regext/wiki/rdapfeaturetables), this working 
group does not ordinarily use the Wiki so it’s not clear how many 
working group members would have noticed this.

It’s also true that this elevation in status has been mentioned on the 
mailing list:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/TVPbyM0HXd0lrc7VFUNuioTmDp4/ 
(rfc7482bis - September 2019)

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/j8jM-Elo_kAYeOoKFLf2K3op_hY/ 
(rfc7483bis - January 2020)

Those were singular messages from some time ago with no discussion on 
the mailing list so, again, it’s not clear how many working group 
members would have noticed this.

2. The working group last call for both documents did not call out the 
elevation in standards status.  This is important since we have to make 
sure the working group members are fully aware of what they are 
approving.

3. The shepherd write-up for each document has additional requirements 
that are intended to call out to the IESG and more broadly the IETF that 
the documents are being elevated.

In summary, as these are the first documents this working group is 
seeking to advance in standards status, we missed a few administrative 
details.  We just need to correct this and then these documents can 
proceed.

The chairs are going to take the following actions.

1. We are going to pull the documents back from the IESG to the working 
group.

2. We will re-issue a last call for each document asking explicitly 
about the elevation in standards status.  We will require that many 
working group members approve this.  We will be looking for “+1” 
from as many working group members as possible.  Please do take the time 
to respond.

3. We will ask the document shepherds to revise their write-ups in 
preparation for a successful working group last call.

4. Finally, we will advance the documents again to the IESG.

We are sorry for the confusion.  Please note, the last call will be an 
extended one because of the holiday season.  Please watch for the 
announcement in the next day or so.

Thanks to all!

Antoin and Jim