> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:02 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: Charter question (was Re: CALL FOR > ADOPTION: draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over- > http) > > 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. > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:58 AM Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote: > > > > > > [SAH] I don't see anything in RFC 7451 that would preclude registration of a > new transport mapping in the IANA EPP extension registry. Jim's proposal is > worth considering. > > "Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the > guidelines described in RFC 3735..." Very clearly 7451 is about extensions > described in RFC 3735. 7451 does say IETF standards don't require DE review, > but that doesn't get around the purpose for this registry or that the IETF > should be misusing its own protocol registries just to avoid following the > process. > > Why the strong pushback on a recharter?
[SAH] Because it's a process-heavy activity that may be unnecessary. If it *is* necessary, fine, let's do it. It would be helpful if our WG chairs would weigh in on the topic. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
