Re: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 25 November 2013 19:26 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2211ADF80 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:26:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tdg25KYMRtgG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18071AE018 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAPJPkB0012729 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:25:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1385407557; bh=y4TasD93JmpKiywR/B7/zZ/aCTn9uOzpE/B1NuOhDdo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=zJas7f6msayiTxHa+OSsx+v2D0jMQVZal12uUwGgmjYVwkgFVADyLPe5PwrhFTm64 MeAqc93AgTvfPV1JpsYW3eFI1iTYpKuLwhlro3B54/P8sf2aVhH3z3JtVvYuhEW7Jb jKSciu83Uuhr1UuM9+AxOOZfGabTbrbRNUTIkBbU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1385407557; i=@resistor.net; bh=y4TasD93JmpKiywR/B7/zZ/aCTn9uOzpE/B1NuOhDdo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XA4uRWnZp3e6zJNEfMr1T3piRHEo/FxeKEKOjp/mWhTue9B/almGbzBK5VMxR7u3h dL0UDEOBdZMRvx1ZMCleIe2lxKsTJydHhMesmVLJYBPpBVdTEqmO6eb/fcqa/mRdr7 eUOi3mzoFq9v9iJfgzae6Jv8nX1iEoWL/gNcWuyg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131125101125.0cb56368@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:23:52 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
In-Reply-To: <20131122171808.16557.95825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20131122171808.16557.95825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:26:05 -0000
At 09:18 22-11-2013, The IESG wrote: >A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. The >IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was >submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send [snip] >Trademark Clearinghouse: draft-lozano-tmch-smd >(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-smd/) > >Note: draft-tan-epp-launchphase has a normative dependency on >draft-lozano-tmch-smd. > >Only the development of the registration process and the >publication/registration of the four extensions noted above are in scope >for the working group. The working group can choose not to publish or >register one or more of the extensions noted above, but it is out of >scope to work on other extensions. One the drafts is about the marks in the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse. I don't see how that draft fits within the Standards Track. Regards, -sm