Roman, your discuss for this draft is still open. I addressed the points described below. What remains to be done? I have one additional comment that I'll add below.
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 2:57 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [regext] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry- > epp-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Roman Danyliw 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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling- > ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ** Section 2.1.1 > The IESG should appoint a primary designated expert and a small > number of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5) to serve as backup designated > experts as described in Section 5.2 of [RFC8126]. The primary > designated expert is responsible for conducting all reviews requested > by IANA. The secondary designated experts are responsible for > conducting reviews as a consensus-based group if the primary > designated expert is unavailable. In cases where a registration > decision could be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a > particular Designated Expert, that Expert SHOULD defer to the > judgment of the other Experts. The designated experts MUST use the > existing regext mailing list ([email protected]) or its successor for > public discussion of registration requests. > > This language above is a slight reinterpretation of Section 5.2, RFC8126. Is > that really necessary as the following are underspecified: > > -- What is a “consensus-based group” (e.g., rough consensus, majority, > unanimity) > > -- When should a DE NOT recuse if there is a COI? > > -- Is there a requirement being set on the IESG that it has to approved more > than one DE here (as the language reads, the “IESG should …”)? [SAH] I've added text to address these questions, but if you still believe that the text is a slight reinterpretation of Section 5.2, RFC8126, would it help to change the first paragraph in Section 2.1.1 to explain that the intention is to describe how 8126 is applied? Perhaps something like this: OLD: A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is described in Section 5.2 of RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Specific guidelines for the appointment of designated experts and the evaluation of EPP extensions are provided here. NEW: Section 5.2 of RFC 8126 [RFC8126] describes the role of designated experts. This section describes how the practices described in RFC 8126 are applied for evaluation of EPP extension registration requests. If this isn't sufficient, I could really use specific guidance to better understand what you're looking for. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
