Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-09: No Objection
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback. === ** Section 2.1.1. Are these three statement providing unique normative guidance? The designated experts MUST use the existing regext mailing list ([email protected]) or its successor for public discussion of registration requests. … The results of the evaluation MUST be shared via email with the registrant and the regext mailing list or its successor. … The designated experts MUST make an explicit decision and that decision MUST be shared via email with the registrant and the regext mailing list or its successor. ** Section 2.2.3 On receipt of a registration request, IANA will initiate review by the designated expert(s), who will evaluate the request using the criteria in Section 2.1.1 in consultation with the current working group mailing list focused on the development of EPP extensions if such working group exists. Why is this text needed. It is restating what IANA already does for “Specification Required”. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
