To support Antoin, I’m asking for those in the working group to review and provide feedback publically or privately on draft-ietf-regext-change-poll, and to let the authors know of any existing implementations or planned implementations of draft-ietf-regext-change-poll for inclusion in an Implementation Status section. If would be useful for registrars to weigh in on the importance of registries to implement this extension to proactively inform them of server-side changes (e.g., modifying the statuses of objects based on court orders or based on server policy, deleting unlinked objects). This extension can handle many use cases, so hopefully more registries implement it and more and more use cases are covered by it.
Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 5/23/17, 4:58 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of i...@antoin.nl> wrote: Op 22 mei 2017, om 17:35 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> het volgende geschreven: > I support the proposed changes. One minor note: Thank you Scott, >> draft-gould-change-poll (change to draft-ietf-regext-change-poll) >> Needs more reviewers and implementation. > > Implementation isn't a requirement for WG adoption or publications as a Proposed Standard. As long as "needs ... implementation" means "nice to note if it exists", OK. You’re right, but this was the comment made by the authors on what they still wanted to do before the document was ready for WGLC to set a date in our milestones. The document is already adopted by the WG, but it could do with more review and implementation experience beyond Verisign according to the authors. regards, - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
