Scott, I agree with setting the status to "Other" and leaving the registration in place since its implemented in Production and should be visible.
-- 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 5/26/26, 9:52 AM, "Scott Hollenbeck" <[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. In preparation for the IESG review that's scheduled for 4 June, IANA has reviewed the IANA Considerations that are included in draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp. They've asked two questions, and I have two responses, that I'd like to pose to the WG for discussion: " IANA Question --> IANA notes that [ RFC-to-be, Section 2.1 ] suggests that Internet-Draft document are not acceptable specifications for the registry. However, "Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" lists expired I-D draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-06 as its only reference. What should happen to this existing registration? Should "Internet-Draft documents are not acceptable specifications for this registry" be changed to something like "Internet-Draft documents are not acceptable specifications for future registrations, barring use of the RFC 7120 early allocation procedure"? (RFC 7120 is available to Specification Required registrations. IANA does request expert approval in addition to chair and AD approval for this type of early allocation.)" My take on this question: we discussed whether or not we wanted to include an RFC 7120 exception in the text, and we decided not to. I'd like to focus on the "What should happen to this existing registration?" question. I'm inclined to tell IANA to leave it there and change the status to "Other" because even though the draft is expired, it's still available for people to see. If that ever changes, we can deal with that registry entry as needed. and "IANA Question --> If "Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" can remain in place, can its Document Status still be listed as "Informational"? (If not, we would also ask whether early allocations could have their status listed as "Informational" or "Standards Track" rather than "Other.")" My take on this question: since we're not accepting RFC 7120 exceptions, that status of this registry entry should be "Other" to make it consistent with the instructions to change all non-RFC registry entries to "Other". Does anyone disagree with these responses? Timely discussion, please, because the clock is ticking. Scott _______________________________________________ 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]
