> -----Original Message----- > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 10:53 AM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: split draft-ietf-regext- > rdap-jscontact > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Following up from last week’s REGEXT meeting, there was consensus in the > room that the document: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uQoPydxD3-9Zzcn8cGoQyZIS7t_3k1- > lGT9r28PizfcM-PiSFsYlzP2DvfKE44cqDlcl_15gYj0KXnDImXSgysrMvfUzirIID40- > QZTwakdcsl9by- > ZX3gfyUlHYPG4WPM0x2bpM4687A6RSYTjx66MsLDpHw7chmy0Uh0qyBHGx1 > 4cULZDVgNCo0biuU855AS0fiJuNQl1I9phusSACoy30T9xtAtSiAgzqziaC5CVopr > WuEW34EwKDUx3dCObsFa0GVSJiIZ3irluMFnssnhEL8r- > XoAhGXGdD2O6zdVo/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft > -ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-16%2F > > Should be split into two documents: the signaling function and the extension. > > The signaling function draft would be put on the standards track and the > extension draft would be put on the experimental track. > > With this message the Chairs are asking the broader working group to > confirm this action. If you have questions or concerns please reply to this > message by Monday, 20 November 2023. If you need more time please ask > on the list and the Chairs will consider an extension. > > Although we had consensus in the meeting room, the Chairs would > appreciate a “+1” reply if you agree with this action.
[SAH] I'm confused. The only signaling that I see in the draft refers to the standard use of rdapConformance to identify the presence of extension elements. Did I miss something? If not, I don't see anything here to split. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
