Hi James,
Thanks for your further suggestions. I'll include them in the updated version.
Regards,
Linlin
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
From: Gould, James
Date: 2018-11-02 20:25
To: ka...@mit.edu; zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
CC: regext-cha...@ietf.org; pieter.vandepi...@dnsbelgium.be; i...@ietf.org;
regext@ietf
As a reminder, please consider volunteering to be a Jabber scribe or
minutes taker this afternoon.
Thanks,
Jim
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 06:29, Gould, James wrote:
> Yes, there are Production systems in place that use this namespace.
> Scoping the namespace at this stage would cause Production
> interoperability issues. Let me know if you need any additional
> information.
I completely disagree with
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018, at 16:35, Roger D Carney wrote:
> A small updated was needed, implementers found the "standard" attribute
> was not at the correct level in the commandDataType.
As expected and said previously, this late addition without any clear support
from anyone except the initial re
Changed milestone "Submit for publication "Registry Fee Extension for EPP"",
resolved as "Done".
URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/regext/about/
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Patrick,
Thank you for your viewpoint on this. I agree with you in theory but I
disagree with you in practice. The EPP RFCs that exist today don't include any
form of epp scoping, so the inflight extensions are simply following that
pattern. The request from IANA to scope the namespaces, that
Changed milestone "Submit for publication "Change Poll Extension for EPP"",
resolved as "Done".
URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/regext/about/
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Patrick,
I support this fix. Fixing an invalid XML schema is a perfectly legitimate
change to draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees, that we needs to be done ahead of it
moving forward. I don't see why there would be an issue with fixing this or
any other invalid content (e.g., invalid XML examples).
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 07:08, Gould, James wrote:
>
> I believe that there needs to
> be a compelling reason to make the change, such as an IANA namespace
> conflict, to justify making the namespace change on extensions that will
> have operational impact.
As far as I know there is no real co
[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 that no
10 matches
Mail list logo
