Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces

Antoin Verschuren <> Fri, 14 February 2020 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B601200B4 for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xIOCZFZESkRk for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:985:b3c0:1:e2cb:4eff:fe5e:3096]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43885120041 for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 46D21280565; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:45:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=walhalla; t=1581691505; bh=ia9A5yFHMDGmeEwaLiFBW6pzflJCHk2/JwwO7LX/xuU=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=LiZNdQQpis6x+DJOHwG/GhEUe7b3PG0KrGgUSE3kMCJgVeNJdscQ2euozjcUwbpyu WM2ZJEcbSt1doNlSmAm9Bx16GPIG73zmB3gsQdD2XId59y5qxcggRLc+RPfA/v2mte pDs3fk0bF1yXn0X/1P89BJt9MoZuDLyAIJYvugzk=
Received: from [IPv6:2001:985:b3c0:1:3553:14ba:de4e:655a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:985:b3c0:1:3553:14ba:de4e:655a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22D092802A2 for <>; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:45:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Antoin Verschuren <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_73D256BF-3DCE-4115-82CC-8C5B774C470B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:45:02 +0100
References: <> <> <>
To: regext <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:45:11 -0000

This call for adoption has ended with no objections.
The chairs therefor accepted this document as a Working Group Document.

For the WG: We still need a volunteer for this document to be the document shepherd. This is an excellent opportunity to get to know the IETF processes for new working group members, so please volunteer! No real technical insight about this draft is needed to volunteer, so don’t be shy. The only thing that you will need to do is to verify that all comments during WGLC and IESG review are attended to once the document reaches that state, and fill in a template about that process. This and all other things the chairs will help you with, but we need an independent document shepherd to state that the correct process was followed.

For the authors: Please resubmit the latest version of your draft with the following name:
We have pre-approved the publication of this draft as a WG document.


Jim and Antoin

> Op 7 feb. 2020, om 15:59 heeft James Galvin <> het volgende geschreven:
> With chair hat on:
> As the CALL FOR ADOPTION comes to a close, the chairs want to thank you for your comments and let you know we’re leaning towards interpreting your message as a no objection.
> Would you like to clarify your position?
> Thanks,
> Antoin and Jim
> On 28 Jan 2020, at 2:10, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, at 09:50, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>>> This is a formal adoption request for Extensible Provisioning Protocol
>>> (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces:
>>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
>>> adoption by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view.
>> The subject can be interesting to the working group and might warrant an RFC
>> (although registries and registrars worked for 20 years without trouble
>> in handling this case, so one might imagine it is maybe too late or
>> not a big enough problem).
>> However, as discussed previously, in its current form this draft will
>> introduce interoperability problems[1], so this just exchanges one problem with another.
>> So I am mildly convinced work is required, and mildly unconvinced that
>> the draft as it stands completely address the issue.
>> [1] TL;DR: a registrar has no way to automatically discover
>> a registry is using the mechanism outlined in this document,
>> as not announced in the greeting part.
>> -- 
>>  Patrick Mevzek
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list