Rolling back the clock a bit here... On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:11 AM John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
> First, it appears that it is making a more fundamental change to > EPP than just allowing for SMTPUTF8 (aka "non-ASCII" or "EAI") > addresses local parts. The second paragraph of the Introduction > says > "A new form of EPP extension, referred to as a > Functional Extension, is defined and used..." > and Section 4 defines that mechanism. Because there are people > who might look at an announcement of Last Call for an > internationalization-related extension and say either "someone > else will look at those complexities" or "oh, sure, non-ASCII > addresses are good", and move on, introduction of that new type > of extension should be highlighted in the Abstract and should > have been included in the Last Call so as to draw attention from > those who are, e.g., concerned about the tradeoffs associated > with adding complexity to EPP. > Can you please elucidate a bit on what sort of callout you'd like to see in the Last Call for documents such as this in the future? Or is it the case that the Abstract should've said something different and thus be automatically reflected in the Last Call? I'm wondering if there's something the IESG should be adjusting here for future documents that touch this space. -MSK
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
