Re: XRP to WG status?

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Scott,

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head as far as my "discomfort"
goes. Not having had a chance to debrief with our people that are there,
these questions and comments may be naive, but...

It's my preference that we deal with "in-scope" until such time that the
"core" has been nailed down. Concerning "extensions", is it contemplated
that these would largely be optional in nature along the same lines as the
implementors choice of transport? (which I assume is still part of the
projected path)

Lastly, re: push - let's try and stay, focused and cohesive with our
movement going forward. A merger of features will quickly expose
inconsistencies whereas separate document tracks may leave us with documents
that compete on certain points. Obviously, I favor the former over the
latter.

-rwr

> I for one would find things far less confusing if we as a WG referred to
EPP
> extensions as EPP extensions instead of something that sounds confusingly
> like a second protocol.  One of the two options described yesterday (the
> multi-document approach) was clearly (in my mind anyway) described to the
> room as EPP extensions.  Let the document titles and text reflect that
> status.
>
> Along those lines, a BEEP transport draft for EPP clearly fits within the
> current charter of the WG.  If the document describes BEEP transport for
> EPP, let it in.
>
> The containers draft made me think about a different issue.  Our WG
charter
> currently focuses our efforts to a set of specified object types.  A
> container object is not one of the objects included in the current
charter.
> I _want_ to see this draft accepted as an EPP extension, but I think this
> leads us to a "next steps" discussion about expanding our charter.  Are we
> now at a point where we actively wish to encourage submission of new
object
> mapping drafts, and if so, where do we draw the line on in-scope objects
and
> out-of-scope objects?
>
> I think the "push" draft could just as easily be managed in an exchange
> between Eric and I to merge the features into the current EPP drafts.  If
> the draft is indeed a description of requested changes to the EPP drafts
we
> can just change the EPP drafts and be done with it, ensuring a single
> editing path as we go forward.
>
> <Scott/>