Subject: Re: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions (eppext)

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:23:52 -0800

At 09:18 22-11-2013, The IESG wrote:
>A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. The
>IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
>submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send

[snip]

>Trademark Clearinghouse: draft-lozano-tmch-smd
>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lozano-tmch-smd/)
>
>Note: draft-tan-epp-launchphase has a normative dependency on
>draft-lozano-tmch-smd.
>
>Only the development of the registration process and the
>publication/registration of the four extensions noted above are in scope
>for the working group. The working group can choose not to publish or
>register one or more of the extensions noted above, but it is out of
>scope to work on other extensions.

One the drafts is about the marks in the ICANN Trademark 
Clearinghouse.  I don't see how that draft fits within the Standards Track.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Nov 2013 20:16:53 -0000

>Clearinghouse.  I don't see how that draft fits within the Standards Track.

I believe that the draft is intended to describe an EPP extension a
registry uses to query the TMCH.  Since EPP is on the standards track,
that seems reasonable to me.

The draft needs a some work to make that clearer, though.

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:14:38 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:17 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions
> (eppext)
> 

True, and the proposed charter makes no statement about the intended status of the considered drafts. If approved that's something for the WG to consider.

Scott