IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 26 July 2022 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A6DC13C506; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 cJcxvx9BRgjg; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 12AF2C131928; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:36:39 -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 1oGQMA-000InM-1O; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:36:38 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:36:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, resnick@episteme.net, gen-art@ietf.org
cc: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <DE95A604B463E314E53979AC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <464724A1-5371-4BAD-B39D-EC504FDBBE18@verisign.com>
References: <464724A1-5371-4BAD-B39D-EC504FDBBE18@verisign.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/regext/VxT5EgfEhBFFXI8ujvnw66IJr5Q>
Subject: Re: [regext] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:36:57 -0000


--On Tuesday, July 26, 2022 18:37 +0000 "Gould, James"
<jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Pete,
> 
> We addressed some of your feedback (Minor issues and
> Nits/editorial comments) in draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-13 and I
> responded to your Major issues below.  Do the updates made in
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-13 and the explanation for your
> Major issues address your feedback or is more needed?  There
> was a follow-on thread with John C Klensin, Martin J. Dürst,
> and Dmitry Belyavsky that didn't look to result in any needed
> changes to the draft. 

James,

Just for the record... I don't know how Martin feels about this,
but my conclusion from that thread was precisely that you and/or
Dmitry concluded that no change was needed.  I did not agree
with that conclusion, merely concluded that further discussion
would be a waste of time.  FWIW, that conclusion about the
issues raised was reached without consultation with the WG and
so cannot be assumed to represent WG consensus.

So, from my perspective, those issues (including the one that
Pete raised) continue to be unresolved and I hope the IESG will
treat them accordingly.

    john

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status