I agree with both suggestions. On Tue, 26 May 2026, at 14:52, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > 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] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
