RE: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 12:14 UTC
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 964B61AE1C4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:14:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hRUtnejdTrpT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og114.obsmtp.com (exprod6og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F80A1AE196 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUpSQryXD522gZB/g6dOVV5PFv6YQQhWD@postini.com; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:14:48 PST
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id rAQCEcwA027279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:14:38 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:14:38 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
Thread-Topic: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)
Thread-Index: AQHO56bdz22Yz70R50Sqrygz07mTEJo2m38AgAAflICAALbwEA==
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:14:38 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F492EF0FF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131125101125.0cb56368@resistor.net> <20131125201653.56513.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20131125201653.56513.qmail@joyce.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sm@resistor.net" <sm@resistor.net>
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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:14:49 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:17 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: sm@resistor.net > Subject: Re: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions > (eppext) > > >One the drafts is about the marks in the ICANN Trademark > >Clearinghouse. I don't see how that draft fits within the Standards > Track. > > I believe that the draft is intended to describe an EPP extension a > registry uses to query the TMCH. Since EPP is on the standards track, > that seems reasonable to me. > > The draft needs a some work to make that clearer, though. True, and the proposed charter makes no statement about the intended status of the considered drafts. If approved that's something for the WG to consider. Scott