Hi Scott, two points: 1. I think there is an issue with the last paragraph of Section 2.1, which says "RFC documents published using the Independent Submission stream do not meet that requirement [to have "a permanent and readily available public specification"]".
This would prevent ISE RFCs from being registered in the EPP Extension Registry, which I do not think was the intention, since the conversation from which it arose was about the use of an IETF URN as the namespace URI. Maybe Andy can chime in here. I suggest removing that sentence, and changing the third paragraph of Section 2.1.1 as follows: Old: Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications; the designated experts may need to work with a registrant to identify URIs that can be added to the IETF XML Registry. New: Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications (which includes RFC documents published using the Independent Submission stream); the designated experts may need to work with a registrant to identify URIs that can be added to the IETF XML Registry. 2. I am unclear on the rules about MUST vs must in BCP documents, but there many instances of lowercase "must" that I think are important, and should be uppercased, if not to MUST then maybe to SHOULD instead? G. -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
