Subject: Re: [regext] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-regext-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:06:13 +0530

> I do find the name of the WG strange: "Registration Protocols
> Extensions". Is there only one registration protocol available on this
> earth? But that is really a minor point.

"Protocols" is plural, no?

b

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:53:52 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 8:36 AM
> To: Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [regext] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-
> ietf-regext-00-01: (with COMMENT)
> 

The WG intends to work on extensions for EPP, RDAP, and any other registration-related protocols that come our way. "Registration Protocol Extensions" does sound a little more natural to my English-understanding mind.

Scott

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:32:06 +0530

> The WG intends to work on extensions for EPP, RDAP, and any other
> registration-related protocols that come our way. "Registration Protocol
> Extensions" does sound a little more natural to my English-understanding
> mind.

Indeed, as we talk about a "tool box" that holds multiple tools, and a
"shoe box" that holds two shoes.  But I think we used "Protocols"
intentionally, despite that, to make it clear that there's not just
one.

Barry

---

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:35:07 -0800

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-regext-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-regext/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:02:14 +0100

Hi all,

> intentionally, despite that, to make it clear that there's not just

I do now understand the intention.

However, the text is "just" talking about EPP and RDAP, and not the 
intention to design the extensions in such a way that they could be 
reused by other registration-related protocols.

I am not sure that the WG is intended to work beyond the scope of EPP 
and RDAP, especially as designing general purpose extensions is hard to 
impossible.

Thanks,

   Martin