Thanks Scott, I will take a look at those sections
________________________________ From: regext <[email protected]> on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:15 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees > -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:39 AM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- > ietf-regext-epp-fees > > The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready > for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed > Standard: > > Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-09 > > Please indicate your support for the publication of this document. I support publication of this document. I have only one multi-faceted comment: Section 8.1 includes instructions to IANA to register an XML namespace. This should be broken into two requests, with one used to register the namespace and a second request to register the Schema from Section 6.1. Section 6 of RFC 5732 is one example of the appropriate structure for the namespace and Schema registration requests. Since this is a Standards Track proposal, the IESG should be used as the registrant contact for both registration requests in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
