Hi Tim,
> On 31 Jul 2024, at 01:05, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> This looks fine to me. In section 2.1.1.2, should the 2nd example have “S” in
> the left column?
Yes, it should. Thanks for flagging that.
G.
> On Jul 30, 2024 at 3:03:22 PM, David Dong via RT
> wrote:
>> Hi Martin Thomson, Tim Bray,
> If DSYNC is an attribute of the registrars and resellers, then that could
be a use case for the Organization EPP RFCs.
I'm hesitant to tie technical properties to legal relationships in this
way. One legal entity may have very good reasons for multiple DSYNC servers.
> Also, a registrar could h
Hi,
Thank you for a valuable feedback in the session in Vancouver on Domain
Connect.
As mentioned there is a renewed draft. I would appreciate more feedback
from the working group on the content of the document itself, even if
not adopted.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kowalik-rege
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-07.txt is now available. It is
a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF.
Title: Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Authors: Scott Hollenbec
> -Original Message-
> From: David Dong via RT
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 6:08 PM
> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IANA #1369317] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-
> epp-ttl (epp-extensions)
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organiz
Jasdip,
Thanks for removing the RECOMMENDED for inclusion of the “geofeed1” extension
identifier. I’m not clear whether requiring the inclusion of the “geofeed1”
extension identifier aligns with the paragraph in the same section:
Extension identifier inclusion is not mandatory, because RDAP doe
Hi all,
During the shepherd's review, some questions were raised regarding
normative references and normative language. This has resulted in a
revamped section 6.
The chairs have asked that this version be confirmed with the working
group before being handed off to our AD.
The specific sec
I am a bit concerned about this draft. We finished WG LC with version
-05, then both -06 and -07 appeared without any discussion on the
mailing list.
It would be ok if there would be just nits, but -06 changed normative
language and -07 now reshaped the recommendation section effectively
putt
On 7/31/24 11:08, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
I am a bit concerned about this draft. We finished WG LC with version
-05, then both -06 and -07 appeared without any discussion on the
mailing list.
It would be ok if there would be just nits, but -06 changed normative
language and -07 now reshaped
Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review result: Ready
Hi,
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review
Comments inline
On 31.07.24 17:20, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
[...]
These changes are a result of the shepherd review in checking
normative references and normative language (see my other email, which
was likely sent when you sent this :) ).
Yes, E-mails crossed.
I am still not sure how u
Inline...
On 7/31/24 12:03, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
Comments inline
On 31.07.24 17:20, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
[...]
These changes are a result of the shepherd review in checking
normative references and normative language (see my other email,
which was likely sent when you sent this :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Newton (andy)
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 1:30 PM
> To: kowa...@denic.de; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-
> 07.txt
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do
It appears that Q Misell said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>> If DSYNC is an attribute of the registrars and resellers, then that could
>be a use case for the Organization EPP RFCs.
>
>I'm hesitant to tie technical properties to legal relationships in this
>way. One legal entity may have very good reasons for
Just on this one topic.
On 31.07.24 19:30, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Would you be satisfied if the first recommendation was labeled with
"This practice has been observed in use." and the other two
recommendations are labeled with "This practice has not been
observed in use."?
This is alrea
On 7/31/24 15:06, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
Just on this one topic.
On 31.07.24 19:30, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Would you be satisfied if the first recommendation was labeled with
"This practice has been observed in use." and the other two
recommendations are labeled with "This practice has
Hi Andy,
On 31.07.24 22:16, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Pawel,
The issues you have raised about changes necessary for either or both
the EPP client and EPP server appear to me to go beyond normative
language. Given this type of language is not in any version of the
draft, does this mean you
17 matches
Mail list logo
