Here's where you can find the regext wiki that was mentioned during Monday's
session:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/regext
Scott
___
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
Hi All,
Thank you all, for the comments and suggestions during our discussion earlier
today about RESTful EPP.
The Area Director suggested we create a new working group for this and similar
work.
If you are interested in joining us, to discuss and write a concept charter for
this new WG, we ha
Hi,
I said that we heard 2 paths forward:
- recharter / expand existing charter
- new working group
If you feel strongly about this topic, I welcome any comments on this list
or to me or the chairs privately.
There seems to be energy to do this work, I'll work with you all to find
the right app
The work should be done. I have no strong view to REGEXT or a new
group, I have previously observed it's the same people in the room,
even if we divide-and-conquer. If we do go to a new WG I ask that we
try to narrow charter scope and not become "the WG which lives
forever"
-George
On Thu, Jul 25
> On 25 Jul 2024, at 02:05, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> I ask that we try to narrow charter scope and not become "the WG which lives
> forever”
That’s a nice ambition George. However I expect some form of regexp WG will
stick around until ICANN stops adding or changing goop in its
registry
Yea, I think we probably agree but my comment was to new WG charter
not REGEXT re-charter. If we put EPP-on-REST to a new WG, the WG
should do the formalism of REST and JSON (!) for it, and then walk
away. Future revisions to functional elements? Good question.
I presume if the REST model worked,
> -Original Message-
> From: George Michaelson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:51 PM
> To: Jim Reid
> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: RESTful EPP Charter side meeting Thursday
> 13:00
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organiz
I think thats wise. Well said Scott.
I shouldn't put words in people's mouths but back in the CRISP days
discussing whois replacement, I got a sense that the "whois problem"
excised the ICANN board and seniors quite a lot. Maybe it was down to
personalities, personal interests, but the idea of som
