Hi Jim, Thanks for the link to the ICANN proposal, i forgot you already added this to the report.
Is RGP as-is an ICANN requirement for gTLDs? if so then if we want to change the RGP extension, we would also need to get ICANN change their requirement for gTLDS and RGP implementation? - Maarten >> >> 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 -- regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:regext-le...@ietf.org> > > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
