Subject: [regext] question regarding status draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:03:23 -0500

This document has been on hold because of the potentially related work 
expected to take place if the recent DNSBUNDLED BOF should become a 
working group.

The action at the end of the BOF was to ask for a revised problem 
statement that more clearly stated the work that would be considered by 
the working group.

With that in mind the brief discussion during our last working group 
suggested that we should unblock this document and work to progress it 
to publication.

Your chairs would like to confirm here on the mailing list that this is 
the action the working group wants.  One concern the chairs have is 
making sure we are clear that this document does not overlap with work 
that will be part of the DNSBUNDLED BOF.

We have two choices.  We can agree to progress this document and start a 
discussion about the substance now.  In this case would carefully track 
the status of the DNSBUNDLED BOF and re-evaluate the status of the 
document as needed.

Alternatively, we could wait one more IETF meeting to see what happens 
with the DNSBUNDLED BOF, and thus potentially pass this document to that 
working group if that’s what happens.

If you want to progress this document, would you please indicate your 
commitment to reviewing it and providing comments on the list?

Thanks,

Antoin and Jim

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:09:34 -0500

I have said on the mike two meetings ago that there are multiple 
bundling drafts and instead of having many, the co-authors should work 
on a common framework/document. There has been some initial 
communications between them offline but more to come. I would suggest 
that we shall work towards a single framework instead of multiple 
incompatible ones. For DNSbundled bof, I think nothing prevents the 
publication of an regext epp extension that would work on specific 
contexts and current deployments, while having another thread working on 
the larger issue.

Marc.

On 2 Dec 2016, at 16:03, James Galvin wrote:

> statement that more clearly stated the work that would be considered 
> by the working group.
>
> Your chairs would like to confirm here on the mailing list that this 
> is the action the working group wants.  One concern the chairs have is 
> We have two choices.  We can agree to progress this document and start 
> a discussion about the substance now.  In this case would carefully 
> track the status of the DNSBUNDLED BOF and re-evaluate the status of 
> the document as needed.
>
> with the DNSBUNDLED BOF, and thus potentially pass this document to 
> that working group if that’s what happens.
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

---

From: "Jiankang Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:13:03 +0800

From: Marc Blanchet
Date: 2016-12-03 05:09
To: James Galvin
CC: Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: Re: [regext] question regarding status draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration
>communications between them offline but more to come. 
>

yes, we have some offline discussion.

currently, there are two kinds of bundling: strict bundling specified in draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration
and relax bundling specified in draft-wilcox-cira-idn-eppext.

We have try to merge to these two kinds of bundling together, but it seems that it is not easy to do so.
We initiated the text for common bundling for discusssion a few months ago, but there has no big progress.

>I would suggest 
>incompatible ones. 

my suggestion is that:

we still have co-operation to move the current strict bundling draft and relax bunding draft ahead.
At same time, we also discuss whether we can produce a common bundling draft.

>For DNSbundled bof, I think nothing prevents the 

yes, agree.

Jiankang Yao