Thanks James for the proposed list of documents to add some context
around why the charter revision is being proposed.
The chairs are understanding that the major concern is the revision is
too broad. The final sentence, shown here for your convenience, seems
to be the issue:
The working
Antoin Verschuren has requested publication of
draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token/
Reminder, there is one more week remaining in the working group last
call for this document.
As indicated below, please do respond and indicate your support or no
objection to publication. This is important for this document because
it has potential IPR associated with it. Silence cannot be
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 9:33 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-
> registration-03
>
> The document editors have indicated that the following
Hi Linlin,
Thanks for updating the draft. Small issue: in 4.3 you did not specify the
status of an org object after returning the action pending responses. I would
add something similar like RFC 5731:
The status of the organization object after returning this response MUST
include
Ok, perhaps some clarification.
The broadening of the charter is not to broaden the scope of EPP or RDAP.
Both EPP and RDAP have always been protocols to serve any "internet
infrastructure identifier registry”, be it TLD’s RIR’s, ENUM registries,
2nd/3th/4th/.. level domain registries, so
