Hello everyone, tl;dr - i do agree with all what Patrick said - more inline
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:46 PM Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com> wrote: > And I still think it is too broad, especially "Data formats for files" > (which files? what data? why the format needs a specification and a working > group?). > "Registry mapping" and "Registry transition" will probably seem obscure to > anyone > outside of the working group. I am myself not even sure what it covers or not. I do agree to these points. For a charter, i think the functional area would be required, and if there wasn't a draft names "registry mapping", i wouldn't know what it meant (quite blunt: would this covering the creation of a geographic map of all EPP/RDAP accessible registries? ;) Some (hopefully more productive) thoughts: "Data format for files" -> Data format, yes, but only in the scope of EPP/RDAP registries and between the involved parties. Limited to frequent cases of such data exchange. "Registry mapping" -> Representation of configuration options for EPP/RDAP registries. "Registry transition" -> not sure what we should standardize here... a process? Data beyond escrow? I understand the intention behind all these, but it seems to me those reflect milestones rather than an abstract charter strategy. best, Alex _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
