Subject: milestones, was Re: a week later...

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:00:03 -0500

I've heard no replies to the message below.

During our meeting in Atlanta, two folks had expressed support for 
this effort.  One is the document editor (in abstentia) and the other 
is Rick Wesson.  I know that most of the other implementers were not 
able to make the meeting, so I want to get more discussion on the 
mailing list.

(I admit that I don't have a list of the implementers handy, so I'll 
call out names of the ones I can think of: Scott, Bruce, Dan, 
Michael, Jordyn, as well as Hong and Rick - what do you guys think?)

I also want to hear from those who constitute "users" that are 
listening in.  If you want this, say so.  If you want this, be 
prepared to press an implementer to say it will be done.  I'm 
sympathetic to the plight of folks who want something but are unable 
to find an implementer (be it a lack of money, etc.), but as a WG we 
really need to focus on solvable problems (and without 
implementation, there will be no solution).

The reason I'd like to kick off this discussion is that I want to fix 
our milestones (beyond just changing the dates) to give us a better 
sense of where we are going.  As part of this I want to know if the 
group should commit to one (or fewer) of the following:

     XXX 03 Submit EPP on SOAP to IESG for Proposed Standard
     XXX 03 Submit EPP on SOAP to IESG for Experimental

At 14:20 -0500 11/26/02, Edward Lewis wrote:
>...and I'm already more that a week behind the mailing list.
>
>What I want to address in the short term are the milestones for the 
>group.  The way we've listed milestones in the past has been "not 
>good enough."  I.e., our milestones should have something like 
>"submit document A to the IESG for proposed standard."
>
>The question I have is about the SOAP document.  In the face-to-face 
>meeting there was interest from two people in 
>implementing/supporting the effort.
>
>The question: do other implementors want to discuss this document as 
>part of the WG?
>
>I'm not asking if it is worthy, or whether it is to be, for some 
>version of the word, mandatory.  I just want to know if this is a 
>topic that is worthwhile for the WG's effort.  (A good idea that is 
>of interest to just one person does not need to involve a WG 
>discussion.)
>
>If the answer to the question is yes, then we'll have a milestone:
>    <some date> Submit EPP mapping to SOAP to IESG for Proposed Standard
>
>We can also declare it to be Experimental or just Informational too, 
>the PS label is used for demonstration purposes only.
>
>So, if you are interested in implementing a mapping to SOAP, please 
>state your case.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer