Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-02: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but what is the goal of these mappings? It would help to have a paragraph or two explaining that. (Or did I miss something?) Are the mappings reversible? -1, last paragraph: The MUST probably doesn't need a 2119 keyword. IIUC, it's a requirement on this draft, not on implementations. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
