Subject: Re: [eppext] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-eppext-reg-08: (with COMMENT)

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 17:18:36 -0500

In my final review, as document shepherd for draft-ietf-eppext-reg, of 
all comments, questions, and changes to ensure the working group has 
cleared everything I found the following ("old") comment for which I did 
not see a response.

For the record, here is my response.

RFC5226 covers this issue with its definition of "Specification 
Required", specifically:

Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
             documented in a permanent and readily available public
             specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
             between independent implementations is possible.

The specification is thus required to be readily available to the public.

With this message, as document shepherd, I am notifying Pete Resnick as 
the responsible AD to release the document for publication.

Thanks to all!

Jim

On 9/30/14 11:58 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-eppext-reg-08: No Objection
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does the WG want to put any limitations on the Reference portion of the
> registry entry?  I was wondering how useful the Reference field would be
> if the link was: 1) behind a paywall, 2) restricted to "members", or 3)
> not publicly available.