Scott, Agreed, the title is better as “Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”. The EPP RFCs have included “Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)” in the title, so it would be most consistent to include the long form.
-- JG [cid:image001.png@01D78DC5.91AB5F00] James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:48 AM To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-02.txt Minor comment on the document title: “Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP protocol” can be expanded to “Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in Extensible Provisioning Protocol protocol”. We don’t need “protocol” twice. Something like “Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP” or “Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)” would be better. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
