The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension
for Strict Bundling Registration'
as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
This is my Area Director review for
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration. I
have a handful of comments on the document's comments, but none are of the
nature that preclude going into IETF last call, which should begin shortly.
Please treat my comments below the same as as IETF last call commen
Dear Antoin Verschuren,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
regext Session 1 (2:00 requested)
Monday, 25 March 2019, Afternoon Session I 1350-1550
Room Name: Berlin/Brussels size: 10
Good Morning,
Thanks for the comments Patrick.
Agreed, another one of the concerns going with placeholders is that to some, it
will lessen the urgency to solve the underlying issue.
Not speaking specifically to the examples you gave on multiple mechanisms, I
still believe that adding an additi
We still have some time left on out agenda to spend on these topics.
I will post the preliminary agenda as is if nobody steps forward to introduce
or lead the discussion, and we can do it under AOB.
Otherwise I will adjust the agenda to dedicate time to these agenda items.
In that case we will tr
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, at 16:22, Roger D Carney wrote:
> Thanks for the comments Patrick. I agree about the pollution of
> placeholders and that is one reason why I think it can only be used as
> a temporary solution.
If this is implemented, it will become permanent and there will be nothing else
Good Morning,
Thanks for the comments Patrick. I agree about the pollution of placeholders
and that is one reason why I think it can only be used as a temporary solution.
I am not sold on creating a "new object." Another way to do the same intention,
to me this will just get convoluted for imp
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, at 15:39, Roger D Carney wrote:
> I think I am in agreement with most people on this, that option 3 (or
> C, whatever it is called) is the best short term solution “define a
> "convention" that allows the and elements to contain
> placeholder values, such as: - and XX whic
Good Morning,
I think I am in agreement with most people on this, that option 3 (or C,
whatever it is called) is the best short term solution “define a "convention"
that allows the and elements to contain placeholder values, such
as: - and XX which pose no data protection issues”.
Though
Hi Gavin,
at first sight it could be a starting point even if, in my opinion, some
useful information is missing:
1) A "formattedName" property should be present in order to:
- represent an organization rather than an individual;
- match cases where the name is stored in a unique d
10 matches
Mail list logo
