inline...
On 9/19/25 04:05, Pawel Kowalik wrote:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for following up on this. It dropped under the radar for a while. At
least for me.
I think, even if the change is not a big one regext is the right place to do
the work, this being the WG explicitly tasked with EPP extensions.
AD-Sponsorship, being maybe a nice shortcut, won't cover for necessary
expertise which is clearly within this WG. The changes being limited it can be
a streamlined process IMHO heading quickly to WG last call just after adoption.
I would support the adoption as a side note.
I'd support prioritizing this in the wg if we can quickly come to conclusion.
Reviewing the changes I have the following questions/remarks:
1) Change from "Informational" to "Other" in 2.2.1. If the intention is to remove the
confusion between Informational RFCs and other documents, wouldn't it be useful to also advise IANA to update
all non-RFC entries in the registry to "Other" as well?
+1
2) In 2.2.3. a possibility to remove an entry was added. I think this is generally good, but quite
under-specified. I am missing guidance what shall be a valid trigger to it. Would it be only the registrant,
or anyone with enough of justification why some entry shall be removed? Would it be useful to have specific
subject line "DELETE" specified similar to "INSERT" and "MODIFY"? Shall the
delete case be limited to some specific cases? What criteria shall IESG apply when deciding? And finally why
IESG at all and not DEs?
This was my suggestion, and I don't think we should get too pedantic with
criteria. I am fine with changing it to DE, so long as the document states that
DE actions can be appealed.
Additionally, I made a suggestion to ask IANA to forward requests to this
mailing list, but I don't see that in the update.
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
