Maarten, We documented this in the EPP Extensibility and Extension Analysis. I embed responses to your questions below.
-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 8/11/25, 7:49 AM, "Maarten Wullink" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, The questions below were accidentally sent to the rpp list, but should have gone to this list. > Hi, > > I’ve got some questions about the RGP extension (RFC3915) > > > - Why was the requirement for a restore report added? JG-The two step restore process of the restore request and restore report originated with the ICANN Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names Proposal (https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm), dating back to June 7, 2002. > - Is the contents of the restore report ver checked by any registry? JG-No, we're not aware of anything being checked by the registries with the restore report. > - Should we consider creating an updated version of the RGP extension without > the restore report? > JG-Yes, but it would be good for the EPP bis draft (draft-carney-regext-rfc3915bis) to incorporate this change first. > > - > Maarten _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
