On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:26:33AM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> and might not be organized for technical reference. One idea might be
> to extract the technical stuff from ICANN documents and make it an IETF
> document and then make it normative. A bit more work on IETF side but
interesting
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:24:56PM +0200, Pieter Vandepitte wrote:
> > Not everythint that can be done should be done. This is the main point I
> > will try to address in a separate email since it is a generic issue, not
> > specifically related to this proposal.
>
> I agree with you, do not wr
Scott, all,
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 12:26:25PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > context of technical issues with the draft. The registration of domain
> > names in some jurisdictions may be subject to various requirements that
> > involve verification by a party other than the registry.
> >
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:59:43AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> and I'm all in favour of that. What you are arguing, however, is in
> line with the way the IETF ended up doing the BEHAVE WG: we wouldn't
this case is probably more related to the discussion around RFC 2804.
> I think it would
Jim, Antoin,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:25:41PM -0400, James Galvin wrote:
> Please review the milestones and respond to the list with ???+1??? or ???+1
> with any updates or comments??? or just respond with your questions or
> comments.
maybe I missed it, but is an item designated as a mileston
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:58:59AM -0400, James Galvin wrote:
> The results were:
> Support: 4
> Object: 0
>
> The chairs consider these milestones adopted by the REGEXT WG.
could the chairs please clarify my point raised 29 April:
# maybe I missed it, but is an item designated as a milestone t
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 06:38:12PM +0200, Peter Koch wrote:
> could the chairs please clarify my point raised 29 April:
now OBE.
Thanks,
Peter, impatient at times
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:26:44PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> for the rdap bootstrap registries, there has been (well since the very
> beginning of the work) discussions about only supporting https URLs. I’m
> happy to make it mandatory. Is there a working group agreement on this?
> Please spe
