> On Feb 26, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... >> It calls for action if the e-mail address is not valid. What does this mean? It needs to be more specific, such as there is no MTA for the domain, or the MTA says that there is no such local part. > > I'm not sure why these emails are that important. I think the emails are > more or less a courtesy to the original assignment holders. With that > responsibility moving back to the IESG, why would we require a response > at all? See RFC 6335. The IESG does not currently have the authority to simply “yank” ports back - and this document, failing to update or override RFC6335, cannot establish that. The emails are the first step in the RFC6335 process. Another step *not mentioned* in this draft is appeal (presumably to the IAB, given the IESG is the party requesting transfer). Joe -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
