John, It was my conclusion that no change was needed based on a review of the thread. Dmitry, the document shepherd (Jody Kolker), and I re-reviewed the thread that originated with Pete's issue. Pete's issue was associated with a better explanation for the extra ASCII email address. The draft should not be concerned about where the email address comes from or what format the registrar (client) is collecting it, which is policy and not technical. From a technical perspective, the email needs to be an ASCII email address should be fine. The policy statements from the draft can be removed to address your and Pete's issue:
1. Delete "It can be an extra ASCII email address collected by registrar or registrar-provided proxy email address." from the fifth bullet in section 5.3.2. 2. Delete “The provided address can be an extra ASCII email address collected by registrar or registrar-provided proxy email address." from the last bullet in section 5.3.2. Do you agree with these changes to the draft? Do you have any additional feedback that needs to be addressed? Thanks, -- JG 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/> On 7/26/22, 3:37 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: --On Tuesday, July 26, 2022 18:37 +0000 "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Pete, > > We addressed some of your feedback (Minor issues and > Nits/editorial comments) in draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-13 and I > responded to your Major issues below. Do the updates made in > draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-13 and the explanation for your > Major issues address your feedback or is more needed? There > was a follow-on thread with John C Klensin, Martin J. Dürst, > and Dmitry Belyavsky that didn't look to result in any needed > changes to the draft. James, Just for the record... I don't know how Martin feels about this, but my conclusion from that thread was precisely that you and/or Dmitry concluded that no change was needed. I did not agree with that conclusion, merely concluded that further discussion would be a waste of time. FWIW, that conclusion about the issues raised was reached without consultation with the WG and so cannot be assumed to represent WG consensus. So, from my perspective, those issues (including the one that Pete raised) continue to be unresolved and I hope the IESG will treat them accordingly. john _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
