Hi James,Likely I missed this part about splitting in the meeting - sorry for that. Can you be more specific? It is the mechanism described in 4. Transition Considerations? Shall it be only referring to jscontact or contact representation or to any transition of output representations?
Here we also have draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type-01 which would fulfil the same purpose, wouldn't it?
Kind Regards, Pawel Am 13.11.23 um 16:53 schrieb James Galvin:
Following up from last week’s REGEXT meeting, there was consensus in the room that the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-16/ Should be split into two documents: the signaling function and the extension. The signaling function draft would be put on the standards track and the extension draft would be put on the experimental track. With this message the Chairs are asking the broader working group to confirm this action. If you have questions or concerns please reply to this message by Monday, 20 November 2023. If you need more time please ask on the list and the Chairs will consider an extension. Although we had consensus in the meeting room, the Chairs would appreciate a “+1” reply if you agree with this action. Thanks, Antoin and Jim _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
smime.p7s
Description: Kryptografische S/MIME-Signatur
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
