Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
There has not been any discussion regarding additional changes to our charter. As a result the chairs are going to interpret silence as suggesting that folks are okay with the proposed revision. In a separate thread we will start a 1 week working group last call on the revised charter. We need to allow a few weeks for our Area Director to review the proposed charter with the IESG and hopefully get it approved so we can move on with new work at the next IETF meeting in Montreal. Thanks, Antoin and Jim On 15 Jun 2018, at 10:14, James Galvin wrote: 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 group may also, in consultation with its responsible area director, take on work related to the operation of Internet identifier registries, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols. The chairs and the Area Director agree with all the concerns stated. This is why the phrase “in consultation with its responsible area director” was included in the sentence above. We are interested in other suggestions for how to modify this sentence to better scope our work. The intent is to only pursue work related to the operation of Internet identifier registries that use the EPP and RDAP protocols. If there is a better way to express this, please to help us by proposing it. If you think that saying EPP and RDAP is itself too broad, how would you propose we express the work we want to do? James’ list below is just the current list of possible work items. They are representative of the kind of scope we are looking to achieve. Any help you can offer would be most appreciated. Thanks, Jim On 13 Jun 2018, at 12:03, Gould, James wrote: Broadening the charter beyond EPP and RDAP would enable the WG to take on the file format drafts that relate to the domain industry and should involve the same REGEXT participants, which include: 1. Data Escrow * Registry Data Escrow Specifications - draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow * Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping - draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping 2. Bulk Data * Data Set File Format - draft-gould-regext-dataset — JG [cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext on behalf of Roger Carney Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:53 AM To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter Good Morning, I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.” Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp sites to get this information from and different registrars request the information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote: Good Morning, I agree with those saying this new w
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
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 group may also, in consultation with its responsible area director, take on work related to the operation of Internet identifier registries, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols. The chairs and the Area Director agree with all the concerns stated. This is why the phrase “in consultation with its responsible area director” was included in the sentence above. We are interested in other suggestions for how to modify this sentence to better scope our work. The intent is to only pursue work related to the operation of Internet identifier registries that use the EPP and RDAP protocols. If there is a better way to express this, please to help us by proposing it. If you think that saying EPP and RDAP is itself too broad, how would you propose we express the work we want to do? James’ list below is just the current list of possible work items. They are representative of the kind of scope we are looking to achieve. Any help you can offer would be most appreciated. Thanks, Jim On 13 Jun 2018, at 12:03, Gould, James wrote: Broadening the charter beyond EPP and RDAP would enable the WG to take on the file format drafts that relate to the domain industry and should involve the same REGEXT participants, which include: 1. Data Escrow * Registry Data Escrow Specifications - draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow * Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping - draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping 2. Bulk Data * Data Set File Format - draft-gould-regext-dataset — JG [cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext on behalf of Roger Carney Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:53 AM To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter Good Morning, I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.” Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp sites to get this information from and different registrars request the information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote: Good Morning, I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name registration systems..."? What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working groups? -andy ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
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 currently basically domains or IP’s or anything that does something DNS, but we have never limited the protocols to be used by any other registry that could arise and saw it fit to use it for their provisioning. We have chosen this term to avoid this working group to only think of policy limited gTLD’s as the only usage for EPP and RDAP, which is not true. ccTLD’s, sTLD’s, RIR’s and ENUM registries also use EPP and/or RDAP. The only change to the charter is that we previously had only one permitted extra work item of the dns-operators draft beyond EPP and RDAP protocol work, because we had a long milestone list that our AD wanted us to do first before we took on new work items. Now that our milestone list shortens, we have more time to take on this additional work, but as the charter proposal says, it should be limited to work related to the provisioning of "internet infrastructure identifier registries” that use EPP or RDAP, and the extra limitation is our AD needs to approve the topic as being in scope. I hope this helps, and if you have a better suggestion for scoping or wording, we’ll be happy to hear. We have put this proposed charter out here for formal discusion on the mailinglist and we will also have an item on our agenda in Montreal to discuss. - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 Op 13 jun. 2018, om 23:39 heeft Andrew Newton het volgende geschreven: > Thanks for the clarification, Roger. > > The file formats seem like appropriate work to me. That said, the > wording of the proposed charter seemed to indicate to me there was a > broader motivation. If there is such, it be best if it were stated. > > -andy > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Roger D Carney wrote: >> Good Morning, >> >> >> >> I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. >> >> >> >> The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested >> wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG >> and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to >> exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, >> change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on >> relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP >> protocols.” >> >> >> >> Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is >> what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for >> this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. >> >> >> >> I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my >> thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. >> >> >> >> To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At >> one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current >> Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing >> the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, >> Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion >> of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes >> to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp >> sites to get this information from and different registrars request the >> information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed >> that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do >> not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with >> the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM >> To: Roger D Carney >> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions >> Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney >> wrote: >> >>> Good Morning, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if >> >>> "...relat
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
Thanks for the clarification, Roger. The file formats seem like appropriate work to me. That said, the wording of the proposed charter seemed to indicate to me there was a broader motivation. If there is such, it be best if it were stated. -andy On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Roger D Carney wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. > > > > The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested > wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG > and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to > exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, > change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on > relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP > protocols.” > > > > Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is > what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for > this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. > > > > I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my > thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. > > > > To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At > one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current > Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing > the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, > Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion > of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes > to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp > sites to get this information from and different registrars request the > information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed > that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do > not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with > the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. > > > > > > Thanks > > Roger > > > > > > -Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Roger D Carney > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions > Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney > wrote: > >> Good Morning, > >> > >> > >> > >> I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if > >> "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was > >> changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name > >> registration systems..."? > > > > What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working > groups? > > > > -andy > > > ___ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
Broadening the charter beyond EPP and RDAP would enable the WG to take on the file format drafts that relate to the domain industry and should involve the same REGEXT participants, which include: 1. Data Escrow * Registry Data Escrow Specifications - draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow * Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD) Objects Mapping - draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping 2. Bulk Data * Data Set File Format - draft-gould-regext-dataset — JG [cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext on behalf of Roger Carney Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 11:53 AM To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter Good Morning, I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.” Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp sites to get this information from and different registrars request the information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if > "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was > changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name > registration systems..."? What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working groups? -andy ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
Good Morning, I was definitely not thinking of two working groups. The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better, change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP protocols.” Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question. I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial. To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names, Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp sites to get this information from and different registrars request the information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG. Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: Andrew Newton [mailto:a...@hxr.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM To: Roger D Carney Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if > "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was > changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name > registration systems..."? What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working groups? -andy ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney wrote: > Good Morning, > > > > I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if > "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was > changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name registration > systems..."? What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working groups? -andy ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
Good Morning, I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name registration systems"? Thanks Roger -Original Message- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 8:52 AM To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter As we have discussed in at least the last two IETF meetings, we would like to propose broadening the responsibility of this working group to cover the standards related generally to Internet Identifier systems. Attached you will find a proposed revision to our charter that would allow this. Please review and provide any comments or concerns to the mailing list. There is a PDF that shows the changes to the charter and a text file of the proposed new charter with the changes already incorporated. Thanks, Antoin and Jim ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > I tend to agree. This WG hasn't exactly been a paragon of broad engagement, > so I'm a little concerned about expanding our scope into unidentified > identifier registries without a better understanding of what that means. +1 Also, anything related to "Internet Identifier registries" is very broad. Will we be taking on ENUM or URN work? The IANA runs several internet identifier registries. Is their work now part? I'm curious, what is the motivation to do this? -andy ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
> -Original Message- > From: regext On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2018 1:57 AM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, at 15:51, James Galvin wrote: > > As we have discussed in at least the last two IETF meetings, we would > > like to propose broadening the responsibility of this working group to > > cover the standards related generally to Internet Identifier systems. > > I am sorry not to have been able to participate in the last two meetings, > but I also find no discussion on the mailing-list about this, so can you > provide more context? > > Specifically because regarding the minutes of IETF 101 and 100 I see > nothing about this in 101 and in 100 only: > "Discussion about broadening the charter to adopt other "registration- > related" documents, once the document "plate" is clean. > Before london, several documents should be off our WG, and we can adopt > more documents." > > from one individual. > > I feel missing quite a lot of pieces of the puzzle. > > New work may be interesting, but one has to question first if this is > really related to what we are already doing (what is the overlap?) and > then if the group has enough resources to tackle more work when: > - we are late in our milestones, and not by little (almost one year for > the fee extension, more than 6 months for the organization one, etc.0 > - it is difficult to find shepherds for write-ups (I can testify :-)) > - there are not so many individuals commenting/reviewing each draft on the > list, so consensus is already quite hard to achieve. > > > Attached you will find a proposed revision to our charter that would > > allow this. > > > > Please review and provide any comments or concerns to the mailing list. > > My concern is that there is only a short sentence added to the current > charter that does not give a lot of details about what we are speaking > about here, especially since EPP and RDAP are detailed before in many > sentences. > > So, in short, I am uneasy to say anything because I lack both context and > substance about what we are talking about. > Some examples of relevant work could also be useful. I tend to agree. This WG hasn't exactly been a paragon of broad engagement, so I'm a little concerned about expanding our scope into unidentified identifier registries without a better understanding of what that means. Scott ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, at 15:51, James Galvin wrote: > As we have discussed in at least the last two IETF meetings, we would > like to propose broadening the responsibility of this working group to > cover the standards related generally to Internet Identifier systems. I am sorry not to have been able to participate in the last two meetings, but I also find no discussion on the mailing-list about this, so can you provide more context? Specifically because regarding the minutes of IETF 101 and 100 I see nothing about this in 101 and in 100 only: "Discussion about broadening the charter to adopt other "registration-related" documents, once the document "plate" is clean. Before london, several documents should be off our WG, and we can adopt more documents." from one individual. I feel missing quite a lot of pieces of the puzzle. New work may be interesting, but one has to question first if this is really related to what we are already doing (what is the overlap?) and then if the group has enough resources to tackle more work when: - we are late in our milestones, and not by little (almost one year for the fee extension, more than 6 months for the organization one, etc.0 - it is difficult to find shepherds for write-ups (I can testify :-)) - there are not so many individuals commenting/reviewing each draft on the list, so consensus is already quite hard to achieve. > Attached you will find a proposed revision to our charter that would > allow this. > > Please review and provide any comments or concerns to the mailing list. My concern is that there is only a short sentence added to the current charter that does not give a lot of details about what we are speaking about here, especially since EPP and RDAP are detailed before in many sentences. So, in short, I am uneasy to say anything because I lack both context and substance about what we are talking about. Some examples of relevant work could also be useful. -- Patrick Mevzek ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
