There is a real advantage for IANA in signaling that IANA needs to be aware of Section 2. When we receive a registration request, we typically won’t look to other sections of a document for instructions unless we’re specifically pointed there, or are sufficiently familiar with the document to know that there’s something to check. In the future, if a new staff member doesn't realize that they need to refer to Section 2, they'll miss the template they need to check the request against, the declaration that I-Ds aren’t eligible for registration, information about which experts should respond, etc.
So we’d recommend one of two options: 1) Change the name of Section 2 to “IANA Considerations,” move Section 3 into it, and call that subsection something like “IANA Actions” or “IANA Actions for This Document” 2) Add a line to Section 3 that tells us to see Section 2 for request-processing information. Thanks, Amanda ________________________________ From: Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 10:08:44 AM To: The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Gavin Brown; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Ext] [iesg] Ketan Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!PtGJab4!_DeOwiBivlOh6bNLgecw0d9itHjGPyMm3TKRyIAG9a2CKiiISbwyYW4MvkCcNq8pjTY_i1EU8SHtDzFg9xSAr1Y$ [ietf[.]org] for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp/__;!!PtGJab4!_DeOwiBivlOh6bNLgecw0d9itHjGPyMm3TKRyIAG9a2CKiiISbwyYW4MvkCcNq8pjTY_i1EU8SHtDzFgZZOfBxk$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the author and the WG for this document. I have a discussion point that should be trivial to address. This has got to do with the part that details about the IANA registries, format of requests, DE guidance, etc. should be under the IANA Considerations section per RFC8126. A trivial way to address this is to move all the content from under Section 2 into the IANA Considerations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I also have a few comments to offer: 1) Doesn't the following belong under DE guidance? An English language version of the extension specification MUST be referenced from the registry, though non- English versions of the specification may also be provided. Note that Section 2.1 of RFC 3735 [RFC3735] (or its future replacement) provides specific guidelines for documenting EPP extensions. 2) Regarding the following text: "For this registry, acceptable specifications include RFC documents and proprietary specifications that meet the "permanent and readily available" requirement described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]. Internet-Draft documents are not acceptable specifications for this registry." FYI - there is a 8126bis in the works that provides more flexibility in this matter (it is still work-in-progress). Please check https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis-01.html*section-4.6.1.1__;Iw!!PtGJab4!_DeOwiBivlOh6bNLgecw0d9itHjGPyMm3TKRyIAG9a2CKiiISbwyYW4MvkCcNq8pjTY_i1EU8SHtDzFgKCDzC-k$ [ietf[.]org] I am not suggesting that anything be changed though; just sharing in case this was not already known. 3) Regarding the following text: "If the specification for an extension is an IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the designated expert." Is that "document" or more specifically "RFC"? I ask because I-Ds are not considered for allocation.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
