Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-06.txt

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 11:05, Pieter Vandepitte wrote: > Short question: what's the purpose of an allocation token within a > transfer command (and what's the difference with authInfo code)? I > understand the purpose in case of create and I can imagine some use > cases for update, but even

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 12:54, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > It's OK to say, "I've read the > document and I have no concerns"! The IETF doesn't charter "lurking" > groups, people! FWIW and speaking just about myself, it is not that I am just lurking in the LCs it is that I have various issues

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:59:04AM -0400, James Galvin wrote: > The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready > for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best > Current Practice: > > Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging >

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

I support it and think it's a good idea. Marcos Andrew Newton --- Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag --- De:"Andrew Newton" A:"James Galvin" Cc:"Registration Protocols Extensions" Fecha:vie., 13 abr. 2018

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

I support... but I'm also a co-author. :) -andy On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:10 AM, James Galvin wrote: > Thanks to James Gould for volunteering to be document shepherd! > > Please folks, as Scott says, respond to this message and indicate your > support or at least no

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02

I don't want to delay the publication, and I support it, but there are still some issues/concerns Typos/errors > EPP provides two commands to retrieve domain information Should be: "EPP provides two commands to retrieve organization information". >This document does not define a mapping

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02

> -Original Message- > From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:22 AM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-org-02 > > The document editors have

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

Thanks to James Gould for volunteering to be document shepherd! Please folks, as Scott says, respond to this message and indicate your support or at least no objection. Thanks! Antoin and Jim On 6 Apr 2018, at 9:59, James Galvin wrote: The document editors have indicated that the

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-11.txt

I made the proposal for the optional "standard" attribute with the list message (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/7E6X5xCdt3DhqL7p7CFupm9bAAY/?qid=e4f712bc8e70e4d0a458971928924651) on the thread with Pat Moroney. The description in the proposal was " Add a new optional “standard”

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag

I volunteer to be the document shepherd. Thanks, Jim > On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:59 AM, James Galvin wrote: > > The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for > submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best Current > Practice:

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-11.txt

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, at 22:24, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-11 I see that this includes some of my latest comments (but not all of them, for example required attributes still do