Subject: [ietf-provreg] IESG Review Request: EPP to Draft

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:34:59 -0400

Ted, Lisa:

With recent Internet-Draft document updates and posting of an
implementation report I believe that all of the RFC 2026
proposed-to-draft milestones that can be met by the former provreg
working group have been met.  I would like to ask you to evaluate the
Internet-Draft documents for elevation to Draft Standard status.  Here
is a link to the implementation report:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

There are some normative references that are still at Proposed Standard
status.  Here's a list of the documents and the references in question:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03.t
xt
RFC 3023 (XML Media Types)
RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04.t
xt
RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03.t
xt
RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)
RFC 3513 (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04.t
xt
RFC 2822 (Internet Message Format)
RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03.t
xt
RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol Version 1.0)

Each document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.

I'm available to answer any questions.  Thank you for your
consideration.

-Scott-