Why wouldn't it be sufficient for ICANN if the extensions were just
submitted to the registry (without going through the WG)?
We did this with the .SE extensions.
Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> schrieb am Do., 13. Okt. 2016
um 13:01 Uhr:
> *From:* regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gustavo
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2016 6:39 PM
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Subject:* [regext] WG I-Ds in the IANA EPP Extensions Registry
> Hello colleagues,
> The gTLD base registry agreement requires Registries to provide and update
> the relevant documentation of all the EPP Objects and Extensions supported
> to ICANN prior to deployment. Currently, in order to comply with this
> provision, Registries upload their documentation through a portal
> maintained by ICANN.
> The proposal for the new version of this portal is to periodically
> download the EPP extensions registry (
> allowing the registry to select entries from the IANA Registry. In other
> words, the EPP extension must be registered in the IANA EPP Registry in
> order to comply with this contractual provision.
> Several Registries have implemented EPP extensions described in WG I-Ds
> that are not registered in the IANA EPP registry. Is it appropriate to
> register a *WG* I-D in the IANA EPP Registry or should the author wait
> until the I-D becomes an RFC? Should it be a requirement to register the
> EPP extension in the IANA EPP registry shortly after becoming a WG item?
> [SAH] I believe it is more appropriate for an extension that is being
> developed through the IETF process to be registered only after it has been
> approved for publication as an RFC. Internet-Drafts are not guaranteed to
> be published as RFCs, and the specifications they describe can change
> before they are ultimately approved for RFC publication.
> regext mailing list
regext mailing list