Re: EPP Extensions Registry Draft and WG Charter Status

Jim, I tried to balance the info in the registry form vs. what can be found by reading the spec. The text name is an exception, but in general I thought it best to not register redundant information.

Scott

> On Oct 19, 2013, at 12:42 AM, "Gould, James" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> It looks like a great start.  One question is whether we should include any references to the namespace URI's used in the extension?  Also should we include any dependencies like listing that an extension extends the domain RFC or even another custom mapping?I am assuming that we include both object mappings as well as extensions.
> 
> Thanks for creating the draft!
> 
> JG
> 
> James F. Gould
> Principal Engineer
> Verisign
> 
> [email protected]
> 
>> On Oct 19, 2013, at 6:42 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> No one volunteered to put some thoughts in an I-D describing the creation and management of a registry as requested here:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg/current/msg07451.html
>> 
>> So I did it myself:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hollenbeck-epp-ext-reg-00.txt
>> 
>> I'm still waiting to hear back from Pete on next steps to charter a working group. He provided some comments on the draft charter I sent to him and I made the requested changes. He has the token to proceed or not.
>> 
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> provreg mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg