From: James Galvin <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 10:49 PM To: Jorge Cano <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [regext] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-03 (Ends 2026-03-09)
Speaking as a participant, I support publication of this document. I do have two what I consider to be editorial suggestions for consideration. 1. The last sentence in Section 2.1 has a "should not" and I think that should be "SHOULD NOT". Here is the sentence: Should they decline to do so, perceived similarity should not be a sufficient reason for rejection as long as all other requirements are met. [SAH] Maybe. This isn’t interoperability guidance. What’s there now seems clear enough, but with the “as long as” text that’s there we’ve provided context that explains why. I’ll make the change as long as no one objects. 2. In the Security Considerations, there is only a back reference to RFC3735. Shouldn't we include a back reference to STD69 so that we include all the Security Considerations sections from EPP? [SAH] That seems like a good idea. Another update is needed before this goes to the IESG. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
