Thanks. I have marked this as "Verified." I changed the type to "Editorial."
/a
On 3/5/19 7:34 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
OK, I'll confirm it since no one has raised any objections.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Newton
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:14 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Sc
This is my Area Director review for
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration. I
have a handful of comments on the document's comments, but none are of the
nature that preclude going into IETF last call, which should begin shortly.
Please treat my comments below the same as as IETF last call commen
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees. It looks to be in
generally
good shape, although I have marked two of my feedback items below as
"DISCUSS".
This doesn't necessarily mean they need to result in document changes (as I
might be mistaken), but I would like to make sure we address
James --
When I poked Ben about the delta between -10 and -11, he indicated that
there were some additional clarifications he was waiting for. Specifically:
I think that James had said:
% I'll provide a little bit more clarification around the basis for the use
% of a freeform token for the
[as an individual]
On 1/2/19 12:10 PM, John R Levine wrote:
The 2119 words MUST and MAY are used to signify requirements;
although that does imply interoperability as well. This statement is
associated with making the verification code functional, since the
verification code represents a sign
[as an individual]
On 12/19/18 9:40 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
On 12/19/18 4:19 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:22 AM Gurshabad Grover
wrote:
Privacy Considerations
--
The working of the described extension depends on the sharing of data of
(or generat
[as an individual]
While I might quibble about some of the specifics of the proposed text,
I disagree with the characterization of "unhelpful." Both proposed
sections, in fact, make an attempt to be actionable.
In terms of tendentiousness, one could easily say the same of pretty
much any "Se
[speaking as an individual]
On 10/6/18 00:30, Adam Roach wrote:
I strongly support enumerating the concerns raised in the HRPC review
as part of this document.
Since this came up during today's REGEXT meeting, I wanted to clarify
something.
I made the above quoted statement assuming
Thanks, Martin. Can you follow up with IANA to let them know that your
concerns have been satisfied?
/a
On 10/30/18 4:54 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
Thanks Linlin, that helps. If these are following existing patterns,
that works for me.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:43 PM Linlin Zhou wrote:
Dear
[as Area Director]
Hi!
While I appreciate that the proposal you've put forth is trying to
ensure that popular or urgent work doesn't end up getting blocked on
lower priority items (and pushed into other venues), we have pretty
solid historical data that shows that the approach you're describi
the changes.
Thanks,
—
JG
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 10/19/18, 6:54 PM, "Adam Roach" wrote:
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-change-
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-09. I have a
handful of
comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to
consider the document. Please treat them as you would any other last-call
comments.
There is also one blocking comment that needs to be resolv
On 10/8/18 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The RFC 2718 normative reference is a bit strange to one that does not normally
work in this area.
Thanks! This is a good catch of a character transposition. The correct
reference here should be RFC 2781 rather than RFC 2718. While this is
still tech
[as an individual]
On 10/5/18 8:17 AM, Thomas Corte wrote:
Generally, technical standards are IMHO not the appropriate place for
fighting political or societal issues.
At the IETF 98 plenary in Chicago, David Clark said something on the
topic of human rights that's really resonated with me e
“lang” attribute, which
has the default value of “en” (English).
—
JG
cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30
*James Gould
*Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
*From: *Adam Roach
*Date: *Tuesday,
<mailto:jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org>
*Date:* 2018-08-21 11:17
*To:* Linlin Zhou <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>
*CC:* Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>; regext
<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt
L
m:* Linlin Zhou <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>
*Date:* 2018-08-08 13:06
*To:* Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>;
draft-ietf-regext-org-ext
<mailto:draft-ietf-regext-org-...@tools.ietf.org>; regext
<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: Re: [regext]
*From:* Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>
*Date:* 2018-08-07 07:27
*To:* Linlin Zhou <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>; regext
<mailto:regext@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-regext-org
<mailto:draft-ietf-regext-...@tools.ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [regext] AD Review: draf
ic.cn
*From:* Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>
*Date:* 2018-07-28 07:04
*To:* draft-ietf-regext-org-ext
<mailto:draft-ietf-regext-org-...@tools.ietf.org>; regext@ietf.org
<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
*Subject:* [regext] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-org-e
On 7/28/18 3:00 AM, Linlin Zhou wrote:
Dear Adam,
Thanks for your review. I have my feedbacks started with [Linlin].
I'll update the draft based on your comments.
Regards,
Linlin
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
*From:*
.
/a
On 7/28/18 3:32 AM, Linlin Zhou wrote:
Hi Adam,
It seems that this paragraph was generated by the xml2rfc tool. I
reread this section and I think it is better to remove this paragragh.
Regards,
Linlin
----
zhoulin.
Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 7/26/18, 9:32 PM, "Adam Roach" wrote:
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-08. I have a handful of
comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to
conside
Thanks for moving so quickly on this! I've created an IESG ballot for
this document, and it will be scheduled on the next available telechat.
/a
On 8/3/18 7:26 AM, Gould, James wrote:
The IETF Last Call has ended and the feedback received is included in
draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-09.
On 7/25/18 7:34 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Adam's ballot comments would have made me think that the consultation with the
AD has already happened. No request for text changes (the charter text is
clear), but am I guessing correctly that you still want to see more details
before telling the workin
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-07. I have a handful of
comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to
consider the document. Please treat them as you would any other last-call
comments.
There are also two blocking comments that need to be resolved p
On 7/26/18 8:35 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-08.
After sending my original review, I noticed one additional detail that
should be addressed:
"Copyright Notice" section:
> This document may contain material from IETF Docu
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-08. I have a handful of
comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to
consider the document. Please treat them as you would any other last-call
comments.
I also have one comment that needs to be addressed prior to IETF l
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-org-08. I have a handful of
comments below that I'd like to see addressed prior to asking the IESG to
consider the document. Please treat them as you would any other last-call
comments.
I also have one comment that needs to be addressed prior to IETF l
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-regext-01-00: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
The document, along with other
Thanks! I have issued an IESG ballot for this document, and it will be
scheduled on the next available telechat (which is to say, the next
telechat that has not exceeded its maximum page count).
/a
On 7/15/18 18:11, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Adam Roach
Sent
This is my AD review for draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token. Based on what I
see, this document is ready to go to IETF last call. The comments below
should
be handled at the same time as any IETF last call comments.
I'd like to start by thanking everyone who worked on this document.
Despite th
On 6/6/18 06:56, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Adam Roach
...
I read the text as calling for implementors to concatenate "-"
to the
end of the IANA-registered base URL ("https://example.com/rdap/";),
resulting in "https://example.
On 6/5/18 8:39 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Adam Roach
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 7:32 PM
To: regext@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AD Review: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag
I've reviewed the document
I've reviewed the document draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag in
preparation for
placing it into IETF last call. The mechanism and document generally
look good
and useful; however, I have some concerns about its URL synthesis.
The mechanical synthesis of URLs as described in this document
contr
On 12/6/17 1:40 PM, Gould, James wrote:
Mirja,
I believe changing the “must” to a “MUST” in that sentence makes sense.
Adam, does this need to be added to the normative statement change list for the
Chairs?
I wouldn't normally for something that's so clearly just an error
correction; but si
On 12/6/17 2:11 PM, Gould, James wrote:
Adam, does this need to be added to the normative statement change list for the
Chairs?
Not for just adding a reference. The chairs may point it out to the
group if they want to.
/a
___
regext mailing list
On 12/5/17 15:34, Gould, James wrote:
Ok, I believe whether it’s a SHOULD or a MUST, it would need to go
through the working group. The proposal would then be to add the
sentence “When using digital signatures the server MUST validate the
digital signature.” to the end of the 2.6.3 “Digital Si
agreement to the set of changes.
Thanks,
—
JG
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 7/25/17, 11:18 PM, "Adam Roach" wrote:
EPP Launchphase Authors --
On 7/25/17, 11:18 PM, "Adam Roach" wrote:
EPP Launchphase Authors --
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-05.
I have a number of questions and comments about the draft, although I
freely admit that many of them may stem from a lack of
EPP Launchphase Authors --
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-05.
I have a number of questions and comments about the draft, although I
freely admit that many of them may stem from a lack of knowledge on my
part about the operational models in which EPP is deployed. Please b
[As AD]
Thanks! I just wanted to add a couple of annotations for the working group.
The first note is that the intention here is to be as lightweight as
possible. For example, "A 90-minute call to discuss open issues in
draft-ietf-regext-example-04" would be a perfectly acceptable and
complet
41 matches
Mail list logo
