RE: XRP to WG status?

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Scott,

That agrees with my interpretation of the outcome of the meeting.

I think it is also consistent with a recent posting from Eric.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


-----Original Message-----
From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 3:28 AM
To: 'Edward Lewis'; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: RE: XRP to WG status?


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Lewis [mailto:lewis@tislabs.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:58 AM
>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Cc: lewis@tislabs.com
>Subject: XRP to WG status?
>
>
>Jaap and I are leaning towards inclusion of XRP documents
>(draft-brunner-...) as a WG document.  If you have a strong reason *not* to
>include this, please speak up, I believe that the sense of the room was
>that the document belongs.

I agree that the sense of the room was that there was a place for the
documents described by Eric, but I would like to request consideration of
the following comments:

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/>