On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 07:08, Gould, James wrote: > > I believe that there needs to > be a compelling reason to make the change, such as an IANA namespace > conflict, to justify making the namespace change on extensions that will > have operational impact.
As far as I know there is no real conflict whatsoever for any of the current XML namespaces used by every draft on EPP extensions, so by this same argument (since multiple other documents could be said as already implemented "somewhere" and hence having an operational impact for at least one actor) you could arrive at the conclusion that not a single document we have on the table should be updated regarding the namespace it uses. Also by the same single argument, any draft that kind of have an Implementation Status may be said to be operational in some way by some actor and hence any single change in it could be rebuffed by saying "We can not change it, it is operational already". And I would still disagree. Like I said, I believe that most arguments there could be used in the same way for any of the documents, so they should apply uniformly. Either no document is updated in that regard or all are, whether they are already implemented somewhere or not. But after having expressed my concerns, I will not push further on this and just remain in agreement with Martin's first message on the issue. -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
