> -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 1:52 PM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-...@ietf.org; Gould, James > <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext-cha...@ietf.org; Gould, James > <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext- > rdap-object-tag-04: (with COMMENT) > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04: 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-rdap-object-tag/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I was a little surprised to see that this document targets BCP status, not > Proposed Standard. Was there much discussion of this question in the WG?
Sorry, I missed this in the response I sent yesterday. No, there wasn't any significant discussion about this. The concept was introduced to the WG as documenting an existing practice (both ARIN (ex: ABUSE5603-ARIN) and Verisign (ex: 484689367_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN) tag entity identifiers this way, for example), and the WG appears to have accepted that proposal based on the lack of disagreement. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
