Subject: [weirds] Status update

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:57:58 -0700

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> A fairly complete set would appear to be something like:
>
> draft-designteam-weirds-using-http
> draft-hollenbeck-weirds-rdap-sec
> draft-hollenbeck-weirds-unified-rdap-query
> draft-newton-weirds-unified-json-response
> draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements (but only if we want to keep a
> requirements document going)
>[...]

There was some offline conversation about IETF process that allayed
the concerns Linlin posted about this path forward (Linlin should feel
free to confirm or correct me).  As a result, I believe we have pretty
good consensus to proceed with the top four, though it's only been
five days and I haven't heard back from Olaf, so I won't pull the
trigger on these just yet.  Hopefully by the end of this week or early
next week we can decide.  I haven't heard any specific support for
maintaining the fifth within the working group so we'll leave it out
for now.

I spoke to our Area Director about having a draft that publishes the
research into name registry inventory.  As this is not among our
listed milestones nor is it required output, the recommendation is
that this remain an individual submission for the time being.  If we
decide that we need it as a required reference to the unified JSON
response draft, then we can import it as a working group document.  If
not, then we can avail ourselves of the other publication streams to
get that done.  However, we agree that the work can and should
continue if the authors of that work wish to do so.

-MSK, WEIRDS co-chair

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:34:42 +0000

>requirements document going)

The redirection draft written by Carlos is not here. At the very least I
think we need an informational on this topic.

-andy