On Tue, Apr 9, 2019, at 16:19, Gould, James wrote:
> I believe the most important aspect is that there are three separate
> sub-elements to make the <loginSec:userAgent> element structured.
If you just want to record a structure with 3 elements, a sequence is enough,
you do not need explicit naming of each item.
> There will not be any confusion with "tech" contact attribute value and
> the draft describes the meaning of each of the sub-elements.
You could have then arrived to the exact same conclusion with this reasoning
for the "lang" attribute, yet you changed it. So we could as well go back to
"lang" now.
For the record, I am against both "lang" and "tech", but those are minor
points, like expressed previously I think there are other problems more
important but I won't reiterate and I would be happy to see other registries
implementing it, simply as there is no other option on the table anyway.
But again if we go the whole standardization process for an extension used only
by a few players, I am not sure how much of the "E" in "EPP" we do leverage. Or
if we leverage it too much in fact.
As in other cases, it would be good to see other registries/registrars voice
their opinion, or even better implement it or something else or explicitely not
for some reasons, etc.
--
Patrick Mevzek
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
