Op 15 mrt. 2019, om 02:47 heeft Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn> het volgende geschreven: > > > Thanks for your kind review. > > < Summary: Has Issues > < Major Concerns: > < If this document is going to be published on the IETF Stream, > then the > < IANA registrations should point to the IESG, not the document > authors. > > We will update it. IANA registrations will point to the IESG.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding here about the document status and IANA registration. The EPP extension registry has 2 types of registrations: (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7451/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7451/>) 1. EPP standard track registrations: These extensions have had thorough review and have consensus that these are standard extensions. These EPP extensions will point to the IESG in the IANA registry (RFC 7451 section 2.2.1) 2. Proprietary EPP extensions Extensions that seek registration in the IANA EPP extensions registry, but are only supported by one or few registries. These extensions should be documented and one way of documenting them is to write an informational RFC describing how the proprietary extension works. These EPP extensions will have the Registrant information in the IANA registry, which is NOT the IESG! draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is of type 2 since the REGEXT WG could not reach consensus that this extension should become the standard way of bundling. Hence the informational status of the document and the Registrant should be in the IANA registration as mandated bij RFC 7451. - -- 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
