With chair hat on:
As the CALL FOR ADOPTION comes to a close, the chairs want to thank you
for your comments and let you know we’re leaning towards interpreting
your message as a no objection.
Would you like to clarify your position?
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 28 Jan 2020, at 2:10, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, at 09:50, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
This is a formal adoption request for Extensible Provisioning
Protocol
(EPP) Unhandled Namespaces:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
adoption by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your
view.
The subject can be interesting to the working group and might warrant
an RFC
(although registries and registrars worked for 20 years without
trouble
in handling this case, so one might imagine it is maybe too late or
not a big enough problem).
However, as discussed previously, in its current form this draft will
introduce interoperability problems[1], so this just exchanges one
problem with another.
So I am mildly convinced work is required, and mildly unconvinced that
the draft as it stands completely address the issue.
[1] TL;DR: a registrar has no way to automatically discover
a registry is using the mechanism outlined in this document,
as not announced in the greeting part.
--
Patrick Mevzek
p...@dotandco.com
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext