![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Bernie, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
[...]
I've just checked my inbox and the editor already sent me a message about these issues.Please be informed that on the provreg mailing list http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2010-01/maillist.htmlthere is a heavy discussion going on about the shortcomings of the current proposal. At least two issues have been identified so far:1) XML namespace (interoperability issues as with the current proposal the feature negotiation does not work anymore as defined by the EPP core spec) 2) need for active / inactive flag (e.g. to mark a DS to be used for emergency key rollover)Before these (and other) issues have been resolved, IMHO it does not make sense to discuss the I-D on the IESG Telechat.
The current proposal is still premature.Ok, I will make sure the issues are resolved before the document goes to IESG.
I also forgot to mention that I actually expect a new revision anyway - there are some pending changes due to my AD review.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.