And with this, this WGLC is now formally closed. The chairs count enough support for this draft (+6 not counting document authors and shepherds) to be able to declare consensus.
However, this draft changed from version 04 to version 06 during WGLC, and we need a confirmation from the document shepherd in his review that only editorial and no substantive changes were made, and all concerns during WGLC are addressed in version 06. Protocol dictates us that when substantive changes were made to a document during WGLC, we need to issue a second WGLC before we can declare consensus and submit it to the IESG. The document shepherd for this document is Jody Kolker. Jody, when you have done your review, please let us know the result. When there were no substantive changes during WGLC, you can start the shepherd writeup for version 06. Regards, Jim and Antoin > Op 23 dec. 2021, om 12:05 heeft Dmitry Belyavsky <beld...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > Dear Scott, > > Many thanks for your nitpicking! > I've addressed your concern about Section 6 using your words, many thanks! > > As for the namespace version, as James wrote before, we are going to update > it after the WGLC. > > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:15 PM Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 8:55 AM > To: regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-04 > > > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > Dear WG, > > > > This WGLC will end tonight, and so far we only have 2 explicit voices of > support. > > This is a bit low to declare consensus. Could more people voice their support? > > Scott, can you confirm that the changes in version 05 address your initial > concerns? > > [SAH] Not yet fixed completely: > > > > Section 6 still doesn’t explain why “Registries SHOULD validate the domain > names syntax in the provided email addresses”. I suggested this text in an > earlier note: > > > > "Registries SHOULD ensure that the provided email addresses are syntactically > valid to reduce the risk of future usability errors." > > > > The IANA Considerations section still uses “eai-0.3”. It should be “eai-1.0”. > > > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext> > > > -- > SY, Dmitry Belyavsky > _______________________________________________ > 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
