Re: EPP extensions working group

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:41:54PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> In the interest of trying to move this forward, how about these three drafts as a starting point?
> 
> draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gieben-epp-keyrelay/)
> draft-obispo-epp-idn (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-obispo-epp-idn/)
> draft-tan-epp-launchphase (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-epp-launchphase/)

{disclosure: my employer does not use EPP, but I have some interest in
 the topic addressed by the first draft}

playing devil's advocate again, what would be the purpose of the organisational
overhead of forming a WG here?  I understand the change control issue might
be obvious in all three cases, which may speak in favor of publishing the
documents in the IETF stream, even though the IETF URN registry only says
'specification required'. Is there an incentive to get these on standards track
(which still wouldn't require a WG)?

-Peter
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg