The Chairs agree with Pawel and Andy that should pass through the working group, in part because it is explicitly in our Charter to manage EPP extensions.
As the changes do not seem substantive and this document is adding clarity along with documenting existing practice, the Chairs are prepared to move this along quickly. In addition, the few comments that have been received also do not appear to be substantive. We propose to conduct a “Call for Adoption” immediately upon your acceptance of the following process. 1. Conduct a 1 week “Call for Adoption”. 2. Presuming adoption, have you submit your document with a new name and then submit a revised document incorporating suggestions to date. 3. Upon publication of a revised document, conduct a “WG Last Call”. 4. Presuming not objections, proceed to submission for publication. As usual, it would help if someone would volunteer in advance to be the Document Shepherd, and anything you can do to get someone to volunteer would be appreciated. Please let us know your preference. Of course, if any member of the Working Group has any questions or concerns, please do respond on the mailing list. Thanks, Jorge, Antoin, and Jim On 18 Sep 2025, at 8:34, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > The subject I-D was first published back in June. Andy Newton provided > feedback, but that's been it. That begs the question: is there interest in > seeing the draft proceed and be published as an update to RFC 7451, and if > so, how should it proceed? I'm comfortable with the content as currently > written, and I don't think there's much benefit to going through a working > group adoption process. Might we ask Orie to AD-sponsor this minor update? > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
