I think we need 2 hours as well.
-andy
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Roger D Carney wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
>
>
> I agree with Scott, I would like to see two one hour sessions.
>
>
>
> In the working session, I would like to propose working on
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-01 (this draft will
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Dear working group,
>
> Scott has sent this question to the mailinglist almost a month ago, and so
> far there has not been one reaction.
>
> The chairs believe that the RDAP drafts Scott suggested fall within the
> charter of this worki
I do agree we should have 2 hours, and we should use at least half of the time
on document work, maybe in smaller "interest groups". I'd specifically be
interested in progress on the Fee document.
Alex
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftra
Hi,
I published a new I-D on a file format for the submission and result of bulk
requests (e.g., domain, host, and contact bulk operations) to a domain
registry. The draft provides the building blocks for many different concrete
Data Set File (DSF) types. I would like time at the next REGEXT
Hi,
Can we get some air time to present where we¹re at on this draft and
hopefully get some feedback.
Jacques
On 2017-01-12, 1:59 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott"
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jacques
>> Latour
>> Sent: Wednesday, Jan
Thanks for chair's support. We really need more options from WG to decide the
drafts' direction.
From the perspective of authors, we still think a reseller object is a more
preferable way to fullfil the current requirements. But a more generic object
is an optional choice for us to consider. And
