Yea, I think we probably agree but my comment was to new WG charter not REGEXT re-charter. If we put EPP-on-REST to a new WG, the WG should do the formalism of REST and JSON (!) for it, and then walk away. Future revisions to functional elements? Good question.
I presume if the REST model worked, ICANN would also incur some .. belief it was moving contracted obligations to support it? We're not e.g. doing work to a dream are we? Is there a belief we can specify a protocol which ICANN will at some level "commit" to adopting? requiring? Mandating? Not things in our purview of course, but I want to believe the prime body here is not going to say "cute: not interested" On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:30 AM Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > > > On 25 Jul 2024, at 02:05, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > > > > I ask that we try to narrow charter scope and not become "the WG which > > lives forever” > > That’s a nice ambition George. However I expect some form of regexp WG will > stick around until ICANN stops adding or changing goop in its > registry-registrar model. :-( > > That said, a narrowed charter scope would be wise. Though I think the current > charter is good enough and said so at the mike. > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
