> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew (andy) Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 7:37 AM > To: Pawel Kowalik <[email protected]>; Hollenbeck, Scott > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: draft-hollenbeck-rfc7451bis: What Next? > > 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. > > 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
[SAH] We can make that request in the IANA Considerations section. > > 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. [SAH] Agreed, I don't think we need to be very descriptive. The registry uses the "Specification Required" policy; removal of an entry shouldn't be significantly more difficult than that. > Additionally, I made a suggestion to ask IANA to forward requests to this > mailing > list, but I don't see that in the update. [SAH] I can fix that, too. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
