The slides for the presentation of the following document have now been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galvin-regext-epp-variants/
This presentation will occur under the “Potential New Work Presentations”. The
goal of this presentation is to request adoption of this work by the
in Madrid!
Jim
On 23 Jun 2025, at 11:45, James Galvin wrote:
> The REGEXT draft agenda for IETF123 has been posted.
>
> Our meeting will be on Tuesday, 22 July 2025, at 09:30 local time.
>
> Please do review the agenda for completeness and accuracy. If you have any
> questio
The draft final agenda for the upcoming IETF123 meeting is now posted and
available in the usual place:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/agenda-123-regext-01
See you at the meeting!
Jim
___
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To
Time has been allocated under proposed new work in the agenda.
Thanks,
Jim
On 3 Jul 2025, at 8:38, Gavin Brown wrote:
Greetings chairs,
If time permits, Roger, Rick and I would like some time to discuss
this document at the upcoming meeting in Madrid.
Many thanks,
Gavin.
Begin forwarde
The REGEXT draft agenda for IETF123 has been posted.
Our meeting will be on Tuesday, 22 July 2025, at 09:30 local time.
Please do review the agenda for completeness and accuracy. If you have any
questions or concerns let us know.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-123-regext/
Enjoy,
Jor
weeks from the date of this message.
If you publish a draft then we will make time on the agenda for a
discussion of your work. Otherwise, if there is time during AOB, you
may discuss your work then.
Thanks,
Jorge, Antoin, and Jim
On 9 Jun 2025, at 8:49, James Galvin wrote:
Victor,
Will
t;
> --
>
> JG
>
>
>
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/2/25, 10:41 AM, "James Galvin&q
Thank you for the adoption request. The Chairs have added these documents to
the list.
Our usual process has been to adopt one document at a time. As these documents
have both already been presented to the working group we will start the Call
for Adoption for the first one right away. The se
done for RPP?
>
> --
>
> JG
>
>
>
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/2/25, 10:41 AM, "James Galv
please bear with me if there
were
last minute rescheduling or occasionally meetings missed)
On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 1:32 AM James Galvin
wrote:
Noted, Mario. Adding this to the potential new work section.
Jim
On 3 Jun 2025, at 18:38, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Chairs,
I'd like 5
ta such as postal
> addresses, emails and phone numbers.
>
> Mario
>
> Il 02/06/2025 16:39, James Galvin ha scritto:
>> Speaking as co-Chair, this is a reminder for anyone who wants or needs a
>> slot for discussion at IETF123 to get your request in NOW.
>>
>> A
Noted Andy. Thanks.
Jim
On 3 Jun 2025, at 16:54, Andrew (andy) Newton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can we get 5 minutes to discuss rdap-x and 10 minutes to discuss
> rdap-extenions?
>
> -andy, no hats
>
> On 6/2/25 10:39, James Galvin wrote:
>> Speaking as co-Chair, thi
Noted. Thanks Scott.
Jim
On 3 Jun 2025, at 16:37, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> I'd like a few minutes to discuss the need for a 7451bis draft, possibly with
> Gavin Brown as co-presenter.
>
> Scott
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: James Galvin
>&g
Speaking as co-Chair, this is a reminder for anyone who wants or needs a slot
for discussion at IETF123 to get your request in NOW.
A draft agenda is due by this Friday. The Chairs will be submitting a draft
agenda that will include a review of all documents on our milestones and asking
all do
As a working group participant, I would like to request an agenda slot to
present my soon to be revived expired draft on IDN variants. I will be asking
for Working Group adoption at the end of the presentation.
Jim
On 26 May 2025, at 10:16, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Dear WG participants,
>
Attached to this message is the final revised charter for the REGEXT Working
Group.
On behalf of the working group, the Chairs submit this revised Charter to the
AD for consideration by the IESG.
If there are any additional questions or concerns, please do let us know.
Thanks!
Antoin, Jorge,
ing group decides
> that is a good path for a document. It also draws the distinction between
> those documents accepted by the working group in contrast to the proprietary
> extensions mentioned in the first paragraph.
>
> What do people think?
>
> -andy, not the responsible AD
ay be somewhat too strict, but this new text
> might be going too far in the other direction.
>
>
> -
> Maarten
>
>
>
>> Op 28 apr 2025, om 15:48 heeft James Galvin het volgende
>> geschreven:
>>
>> Two weeks ago the Chairs distributed a proposed
Folks,
It is with great pleasure and fanfare - cue the trumpets - that Antoin and I
invite you to join us in welcoming another Chair to your working group
leadership: Jorge Cano !
Jorge is a rising star in the IETF. Some of you may know him. He works at
LACNIC, one of the 5 RIRs.
Our AD, Or
Two weeks ago the Chairs distributed a proposed revised charter and opened a
review period for the working group. That review period closed yesterday.
Many thanks to those who took the time to review the proposal.
Today begins a one week review of the final, proposed revised charter.
Everyon
proposed. This means that, currently, all changes are
expected to be accepted. You will have a chance to review all changes during
the 1 week final review period.
Thanks in advance for your review!
Antoin and Jim
On 14 Apr 2025, at 10:01, James Galvin wrote:
> As discussed during IETF122,
As discussed during IETF122, and during the adoption of
draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic and draft-ietf-regext-epp-https, there is a desire
to add some clarity to our Charter regarding the work can and should be adopted
by our working group.
The Chairs have drafted the following proposed changes. As
attend this meeting.
Watch for the official announcement through the usual IETF channels.
See you there!
Antoin and Jim
On 2 Apr 2025, at 10:21, James Galvin wrote:
> Speaking as co-Chair:
>
> A virtual interim meeting is certainly an option and available. Meetings can
> als
://doodle.com/group-poll/participate/dLWZVvrb
We’ll announce the results on Monday, 14 April 2025.
Thanks to all!
Antoin and Jim
On 2 Apr 2025, at 10:21, James Galvin wrote:
Speaking as co-Chair:
A virtual interim meeting is certainly an option and available.
Meetings can also be
Speaking as co-Chair:
A virtual interim meeting is certainly an option and available.
Meetings can also be held in person but I’m assuming you’re asking
for a virtual meeting. Planning is different if it’s going to be a
meeting in person.
Let’s first start with who is willing and would att
Folks,
There are only two presentations scheduled for our Friday technical meeting,
totally 20 minutes. We do have quite a few documents on our Existing Work and
it would have been a good time to advance this work in the remaining 1 hour 40
minutes.
We’ve had several successful 2 hour technic
sure that both documents indicate the
advantages of their respective protocol.
These documents are adopted by the working group.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 24 Feb 2025, at 8:47, James Galvin wrote:
> As there have not been any objections and with 5 indications of support these
> two doc
Thanks for the Charter question Andy.
As you know, to date the phrase “registration extensions” and the final three
bullets in our Charter have been interpreted broadly by Working Group members
and our various Area Directors over the years.
Nonetheless, it’s always appropriate to examine scope,
On 3 Feb 2025, at 9:05, James Galvin wrote:
> Continuing our potential adoption of new documents, as previously discussed
> the next two documents will be taken together. The suggestion is to advance
> them together, although if these are adopted the working group can choose to
If you haven’t already noticed, the IETF122 schedule is out and we have our two
timeslots:
Tuesday, 18 March
1530-1630 local time or 0830-0930 UTC
Friday, 21 March
0930-1130 local time or 0230-0430 UTC
Yes folks, that is FRIDAY MORNING. I do hope you have planned your trav
Dear REGEXT WG,
This is a call for agenda items for IETF 122. Just as last time, we will have
2 slots in Bangkok: 1 hour for administrative items and a 2 hour slot for new
work with more technical in deep presentations.
Please send any requests to the chairs or respond to this email.
A draft
n that EPP will
have two standard transports without telling why someone should decide
for one instead of the other.
Kind Regards,
Pawel
On 03.02.25 15:05, James Galvin wrote:
Continuing our potential adoption of new documents, as previously
discussed the next two documents will b
Continuing our potential adoption of new documents, as previously discussed the
next two documents will be taken together. The suggestion is to advance them
together, although if these are adopted the working group can choose to advance
them separately.
This is a formal adoption request for bo
James Galvin has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-23 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai/
___
regext ma
call
and returned to us for additional consideration.
Thank you to the authors for their continued efforts to progress this work.
Thank you to Jody Kolker for the preparation of the Shepherd Write Up.
Welcome all to 2025!
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 18 Nov 2024, at 9:17, James Galvin wrote
.C631DA40]
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: James Galvin
Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 at 8:55 AM
To: Joseph Yee
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" ,
"a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no
Speaking as a working group participant:
Sorry to be late to this specific discussion but I agree with Arnt and
don’t believe any changes are necessary to the existing document.
At least among gTLDs, the contact objects are typically not transferred.
Combine that with the fact that a registr
clarify which document is starting WGLC now?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Pawel
>
> On 11.11.24 09:13, James Galvin wrote:
>> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
>> submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard
and thus this message begins a working group last call (WGLC):
Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning
Prot
For those who read their email in near real-time, here’s a heads up that your
co-Chairs have updated the Chair slides for today.
We have listed all documents to the slide deck, not just that those that were
to be discussed, so folks could see the status of each document as we know it.
If you b
Many thanks to the presenters who have uploaded slides for tomorrow.
All but one are now present. WG members may wish to update their downloads and
review slide decks.
Jim
On 3 Nov 2024, at 14:48, James Galvin wrote:
> This is a reminder from your Chairs to get your slides submitted for
This is a reminder from your Chairs to get your slides submitted for the
discussion tomorrow.
We have 7 presenters and only 2 slide decks submitted.
It’s especially important for the 2 presenters who are talking about topics for
which there is no Internet Draft. If you expect working group mem
James Galvin has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08
as Best Current Practice on behalf of the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-delet
Speaking as co-Chair, here is where I believe this discussion has landed.
From a consensus point of view, I’m declaring the working group consensus to be
that v08 of draft-ietf-regext-delete-bcp is ready for submission to the IESG.
We’ve been through WGLC and we’ve had quite some discussion sin
of the writeup.
Thanks to all for the careful review.
Antoin and Jim
On 12 Jul 2024, at 17:18, James Galvin wrote:
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
> submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best Current
> Practice:
>
- Gavin Brown — to confirm all questions
and comments have been addressed, and to prepare the Shepherd Write-up after
which the Chairs will submit the document to the IESG on behalf of the working
group.
Thanks to all for your careful review.
Antoin and Jim
On 12 Jul 2024, at 17:12, James
Just to close the loop on this request, the Chairs would like to acknowledge
this request for WGLC of this document.
However, given the review and activity on the list it’s pretty clear there are
some technical concerns that are not fully resolved yet. As such, the Chairs
will not be taking an
gt; B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>
>>
>> 703-948-3271
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> Verisign.com <http://secure-
>> web.cisco.com/1Q_jl3qk0I2fTjba7ScrCTUbUq5rXEpYZRp9H6ErK_PNgG1sm1
>> AvrujULbSEO3V1emaJkaq1nSM2P_qKSMiTRbGWAs_Dcmw_2TWgAAEE80r5
>> mlfmD8S6sg7p2o
The Chairs want to acknowledge this request and note that we are aware this is
v04, which is the version that we will shortly bring to WGLC.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 19 Sep 2024, at 13:15, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
> Hello chairs,
>
> Version -03 of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions incor
com/>
From: James Galvin
Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 at 1:21 PM
To: James Gould
Cc: "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Review of
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning,
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type, and
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions
Caution: This email
Speaking as co-Chair:
Thank you Jim for these detailed comments.
For the working group, the question that will be before us in the
discussion on Wednesday, which was also before us at IETF119, is what
problem are we trying to solve? The second order question, which was
also before us at IET
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best Current
Practice:
RDAP RIR Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search/09/
This document has been through WGLC previously.
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
An RDAP Extension for Geofeed Data
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed/
Please indicate your support or no obje
latest version of the
document and prepare a Shepherd write-up.
Upon receipt of the write-up the Chairs will review and submit the document
appropriately.
Thanks to all for you review and support!
Jim and Antoin
REGEXT co-Chairs
On 24 Jun 2024, at 9:26, James Galvin wrote:
> The Chairs h
Draft working group agendas are due today. My apologies to the working group
but I’m doing a bit of catchup here myself as my co-Chair is suddenly
unavailable for personal reasons.
Attached is the draft agenda I have gathered. Recall we have two meeting
slots, one for an hour and one for two
Thanks Jasdip.
We’ll do these in parallel as soon as we get “delete-bcp” closed
up.
Jim and Antoin
co-Chairs REGEXT
On 5 Jun 2024, at 13:56, Jasdip Singh wrote:
Hi Jim, Antoin,
Knowing that we have WGLC going on for couple of EPP related drafts,
request that we start WGLC for the RIR Sea
I’m happy to provide some during the “admin” portion of our meeting for a
discussion of this. If you want to kick this off that’s great too.
As co-Chair, I will observe only that if you want a “standards track” document
then whatever discussion is happening or needs to happen in REGEXT is
appr
the WGLC closes and before
submission to the IESG.
Of course, if anyone else has an opinion or comment please do jump in.
Thanks,
Jim
On 2 Jul 2024, at 15:29, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: James Galvin
>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:2
Thanks Gavin. It has been submitted to the IESG.
Jim
On 24 Jun 2024, at 10:47, Gavin Brown wrote:
> Thanks Antoin and Jim, I've just uploaded -14.
>
> Diff here:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-14
>
> G.
>
>> On 24
James Galvin has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-14 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl/
___
regext ma
The co-Chairs have reviewed the Document Shepherd writeup and are
prepared to submit the document to the IESG for consideration to be
published, however since we have the time and opportunity we would like
this comment addressed.
Gavin, if you would please provide a version 14 that addresses t
with your concerns by close of business
everywhere, Monday, 1 July 2024.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 3 Jun 2024, at 10:56, James Galvin wrote:
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
> submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best C
It is a great thing that we have such interest in preparing for extended
technical discussions at this next REGEXT meeting.
We have until Friday, 7 June, to make adjustments to the request.
Would folks please send suggested agenda items to the list with a desire for
how much time you’d like to
Started today.
Jim
On 28 May 2024, at 7:49, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Jim, Antoine: I sent this request more than a week ago. If you agree
that the document is ready, can we start the last call process,
please?
Scott
From: Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 9:16 AM
To: regex
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Best Current
Practice:
Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
It seems the document editor revised the document one more time to #11 while
this message was being crafted. So, please change all references to #10 below
to #11.
On 3 Jun 2024, at 10:50, James Galvin wrote:
> As noted below, this WLGC closed on 13 May with no objections and 6 indica
Standard.
Thanks to all for the work completing this document.
Antoin and Jim
On 13 May 2024, at 9:24, James Galvin wrote:
> Thanks to all for the broad support so far for this document. The WGLC
> closes today. If no objections are received today we have more than enough
> suppor
move forward. The Chairs will keep
the working group informed as that progresses.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
REGEXT WG co-Chairs
On 29 Apr 2024, at 10:27, James Galvin wrote:
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
> submission to the IESG to be consider
Here is the Zoom link for the meeting today:
Tech/Tech Ops Session:
https://icann.zoom.us/j/94010834271?pwd=ZDE5bGJvYlhldzQ0TFd6TWJjRTlHQT09
- Webinar ID: 940 1083 4271
- Phone Passcode: 7554291555
- Dial-in Numbers: https://icann.zoom.us/u/azgSyUrGz
This session will be recorded. I’ll p
Yes, the Chairs will see to this request shortly.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 18 Apr 2024, at 12:49, Gavin Brown wrote:
> Hi Jim and Antoin,
>
> Please can you also submit this document to the DNS Directorate for review?
>
> Thanks,
>
>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 07:18, Gavin Brown wrote:
>>
>> Hi al
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL) values
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl/
Thanks Gavin and to all those who contributed detailed review of this work
before Working Group Last Call.
On behalf of the working group, we’ll start a WGLC shortly.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 16 Apr 2024, at 10:18, Gavin Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This version of the draft incorporates Rick
Speaking as co-Chair, this is a reminder that two interim meetings were
discussed at our last meeting at IETF119.
The most attention was given to having a meeting to review and identify the
problem or problems we are seeking to solve with the following three documents.
https://datatracker.ietf.
Speaking as a co-Chair and without having coordinated with my co-chair, I want
to say two things.
First, Scott’s question here is critical in my opinion. It could also be
stated as, “What problem are we trying to solve”? I don’t feel like I’ve seen
consensus on the answer to that question. C
” version of a working group document using the
appropriate pre-approved name below:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type
Thanks to all for your support!
Antoin and Jim
On 5 Feb 2024, at 9:37, James Galvin wrote:
> This is the for
This is the formal adoption request for the following package of Internet
Drafts:
Versioning in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning/
RDAP Extensions
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-extensions/
proceed.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 11 Dec 2023, at 9:09, James Galvin wrote:
The Chairs have caught up on this thread and have the following
proposal for the working group
We suggest that the working group take on the problem space of
considering negotiation, signaling, and versioning in
Speaking as your Chairs:
Mario brings up an interesting question for which the Chairs need to hear some
other opinions.
On the one hand, there does seem to be some ambiguity regarding the proper use
of the rdapConformance array. If this is a concern, then the Chairs believe
that the WG needs
Hopefully you’ve seen the recent note from the Chairs agreeing with
what you’re saying.
Please make a call for adoption on the mailing list to keep the working
group informed. The Chairs will move forward from there.
Thanks!
Antoin and Jim
On 14 Nov 2023, at 18:26, Jasdip Singh wrote:
The Chairs have caught up on this thread and have the following proposal
for the working group
We suggest that the working group take on the problem space of
considering negotiation, signaling, and versioning in RDAP.
To properly consider this problem space we should adopt as working group
d
the various documents.
The Chairs will start a separate thread so that we can get all documents in
front of us and we will be proposing an interim meeting to have a detailed
discussion about the statuses.
Thank you,
Antoin and Jim
On 13 Nov 2023, at 10:53, James Galvin wrote:
> Following
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,
>
> Pa
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 s
I had no idea you were on the list of “owners”. I thought it was just Antoin
and I.
I’ll take care of this getting changed.
Thanks,
Jim
On 6 Nov 2023, at 15:41, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> Yes, this time I do really want to step down as maintainer of this
> list. Any volunteer to t
You will now see the attached two slides included in the recently uploaded
Chair slides. The agenda has shown there is a 20 minute time period set aside
to discuss in the working group the preferred status of a contact object.
We have the EPP version, a proposed version as described by the jsCo
Fellow Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: James Galvin
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 at 2:27 PM
To: Dmitry Belyavsky
Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , Andrew Newton
, James Gould , "Hollenbeck, Scott"
,
My understanding of this thread so far is that the consensus is moving
towards allowing for the collection of two email addresses. I very much
support this position.
One question I don’t believe we have answered carefully is what it
means to have both email addresses present or just the inter
, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
From: James Galvin
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:05 PM
To: James Gould
Cc: "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Proposed update to
draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai
Caution: This email originated from outside the orga
James Galvin has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-13 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-red
James Galvin has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-23 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid/
___
r
Speaking as an individual, I don’t believe this responds to the issue
at hand.
I understand this to be suggesting that EPP is telling the world that a
registrant is welcome to use an SMTPUTF8 email address and the rest of
the world is out of luck if you can’t handle that email address.
Well,
First, to the REGEXT Area Director, I will state it is the consensus of the
Working Group that v18 is ready to be considered for publication as a Proposed
Standard.
Of particular interest to our Area Director, this message briefly summarizes
the activity of this document starting from its WGLC
please prepare the Shepherd
Write-up so the document can be submitted.
Thanks to all!
Antoin and Jim
On 26 Jun 2023, at 10:02, James Galvin wrote:
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
> submission to the IESG to be considered for publicatio
Because the “redacted” is past working group last call waiting on the document
shepherd for the writeup, the Chairs want to let the working group know that
Andy Newton has taken over from Gustavo Lozano Ibarra as the Document Shepherd.
Thanks to Gustavo for finding a replacement for himself to c
“delay” before the shepherd is done we’ll be able
to move this document along as soon as it’s ready.
Thanks!
Antoin and Jim
On 26 Jun 2023, at 10:38, Andrew Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:49 AM James Galvin wrote:
>>
>> 2. Andy Newton needs to confirm on the list
RESENDING - sorry, I got the author and shepherd email addresses wrong in the
original.
On 26 Jun 2023, at 9:49, James Galvin wrote:
> The Chairs want to remind the WG that WGLC closed for this document on 23
> May. We are waiting on the document shepherd (Gustavo Lozano) and the
>
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
Federated Authentication for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) using
OpenID Connect
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
The Chairs want to remind the WG that WGLC closed for this document on 23 May.
We are waiting on the document shepherd (Gustavo Lozano) and the authors for
the following.
1. Please confirm that all issues raised during WGLC have been addressed in v12.
2. Andy Newton needs to confirm on the lis
In fact, OpenID is next on the list as soon as we get “redacted” out the door.
Jim
On 23 May 2023, at 15:12, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 3:00 PM
>> To: Gould, James
>
Thank you Jim Gould, and everyone for bringing this to closure.
This WGLC is now closed.
In order to move this document forward the Chairs will need the document
shepherd (Gustavo Ibarra) to indicate on the list if all issues have been
addressed when v12 is published.
The Chairs will also need
1 - 100 of 313 matches
Mail list logo
