Hi, I have posted the revised charter here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-regext/02-01/
I'll see if this addresses the outstanding block position. As these changes are substantial, the IESG may prefer to reballot. The ball is now in my court. Regards, OS, ART AD On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 9:24 AM Antoin Verschuren <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Orie, > > Thank you for applying the changes. It looks like we reached consensus. > There is only one comment from tjw that has not been captured in Github > yet: > > "My comment on Marc’s suggestions is to not limit to “transport related” > wgs but any relevant working groups” > > which applies to this text: > > * The specification of application transport protocols for EPP based on > existing RFCs, with proper review and advice from the relevant transport > protocol working group. > > I suggest changing that to: > > * The specification of application transport protocols for EPP based on > existing RFCs, with proper review and advice from the relevant protocol > working group. > > > Regards, > > Antoin > > > > - -- > Antoin Verschuren > > Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL > M: +31 6 37682392 > > > > > > > Op 1 okt. 2025, om 14:50 heeft Orie <[email protected]> het volgende > geschreven: > > Hi, > > Its been silent for a while on > https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/pull/55 > > I have applied the suggestions. > > Are there any objections to my taking these changes without diving into > "profiles"? > > If not, please send text to the list for discussion. > > Regards, > > OS, ART AD > > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:13 AM Pawel Kowalik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Orie, >> >> For RDAP profile is (or can be) an extension same time. Extension >> mechanism is used as signalling in this case. >> >> See 2.1.1 of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions. >> >> From this perspective the WG does not make protocol profiling as such but >> mechanisms needed for profiling were coped with so far. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Pawel >> On 16.09.25 15:38, Orie wrote: >> >> Excellent point. >> >> Would it not be easier to remove the word profile though? >> >> Have we ever done profiles in this WG before? >> >> Why should profiles be in scope? >> >> Regards, >> >> OS >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 4:53 AM Maarten Wullink <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Orie, >>> >>> >>> Minor comment here, >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > A primary goal of the working group is to ensure the profiles and >>> extensions are easily discoverable and understood, and to avoid duplicate >>> effort that could harm interoperability. >>> > >>> >>> This is the first and only mention a the “profile” concept, and it is >>> used in the context of the primary goal of the wg. >>> Does this not warrant some additional text describing what a profile is >>> or adding a line saying what profile related wg activities are in scope? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Maarten >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
