On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Antoin Verschuren <i...@antoin.nl> wrote: > Dear working group, > > Scott has sent this question to the mailinglist almost a month ago, and so > far there has not been one reaction. > > The chairs believe that the RDAP drafts Scott suggested fall within the > charter of this working group, as RDAP extensions are part of our charter. > But we do need sufficient participation for review for us to take documents > onboard. > That’s not only true for these documents, but for all documents already in > our charter. > When we rechartered, we had sufficient voiced support for review of > documents, but it seems not all subjects share the same interest over time. > No interest in a specific solution also needs advise on why it’s not needed > or a bad idea. > So I have a number of questions for you: > > 1. Do we have any volunteers to review these RDAP documents?
I've actually reviewed one of them already, and I can review the other. > 2. Could we identify the organizations that have or are implementing RDAP so > we can motivate them in participating if they don’t already? > > 3. Could we make a list of implementations, published/intended policy > proposals and RDAP toolkits? > > 3. If you are aware of RDAP implementers or policy reviewers not aware of > this working group, could you please motivate them in participating? I thought a lot of this information was already collected in the RegOps workshops. Maybe we should ask them for it. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
