IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] last call reviews of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12 (and -15)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 23 August 2022 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC5FC1522B1; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XJpOBwvRQlLq; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD83C1522AF; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1oQJdA-000P5K-EL; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 22:27:04 -0400
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 22:26:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Gould, James" <jgould@verisign.com>, beldmit@gmail.com, paf@paftech.se, jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org
cc: art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org, i18ndir@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C64CA7923ACF9C96102DCE57@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <4FFD4044-CB4C-46EC-AAAE-B84E6B3AB4B0@verisign.com>
References: <4FFD4044-CB4C-46EC-AAAE-B84E6B3AB4B0@verisign.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Mlm6jDZPDUNnA_Ca_21Pzyj-agI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] last call reviews of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12 (and -15)
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 02:27:09 -0000


--On Monday, August 22, 2022 16:01 +0000 "Gould, James"
<jgould@verisign.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> How about if we change the approach to use the well-understood
> command-response extension? 

If things were changed to create an extension type that is
defined in RFC 5730 rather than creating a new type, that would
certainly eliminate the need to update 5730 (or explain clearly
why that was not necessary).

That, of course, leaves the more substantive SMTPUTF8 issues,
particularly the need for a slot for an alternate all-ASCII
address.

thanks,
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email