Hi < responsible ad hat on>
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 3:55 PM James Galvin wrote:
> 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
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
Hi,
+1 for optimizing the process where possible.
But i wonder why this new process is limited to RDAP extensions only?
What is the distinction between RDAP extensions and other work done in REGEXT
such as EPP extensions?
-
Maarten
> Op 17 jun 2024, om 16:25 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott
> he
I have two competing views
1) get rid of time-wasting. If documents something novel in
implementations but there are no implementations, it's not very useful
work. Experimental and Informational are kind of different.
2) de-facto VETO from incumbency. I am concerned in other WG this is
being used
On 6/17/24 10:25, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Newton (andy)
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 6:23 AM
To: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] using experimental to move items forward
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not cl
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Newton (andy)
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 6:23 AM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] using experimental to move items forward
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links
> or open attachment
