Subject: [eppext] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-eppext-reg-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 08:02:47 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eppext-reg-08: Discuss

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.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-reg/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Cleared the bit about IANA as Pete now has it in his Discuss]

Last time we went through a similar document, the IESG asked me why I
was running it as Standards track when Informational seemed to be good
enough and there was no description of protocol behavior in the 
document. Additionally, the IESG seemed to think that this sort of
document might usefully be tagged as updating the RFC(s) that define
the registries it discusses.

Personally, I find it hard to care about this point and I am not asking
the author to make any changes. But I would like to take advantage of 
the IESG telechat to ask the IESG to try to be a little consistent! I 
will remove this part of the Discuss during the telechat.

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

The document shows a warning in idnits.

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC3986' is defined on line 441, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text