Yes, it is sufficient if the extension is submitted to the IANA Registry.

My question is about the I-Ds that are going through the IETF process. For
example, Registries that have currently implemented
draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees. If it¹s not appropriate to register those (I-Ds
going through the IETF process) in the IANA EPP extension Registry, we will
need to support the old method of manually uploading the documentation
through the portal. If the uploading mechanism is not supported, the
Registries will be required to use the IANA EPP extension registry, and as a
result, the IANA EPP Registry will be used more.


From:  Ulrich Wisser <>
Date:  Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 04:17
To:  "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>, Gustavo Lozano
<>, "" <>
Subject:  Re: [regext] WG I-Ds in the IANA EPP Extensions Registry

> 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.
> /Ulrich
> Hollenbeck, Scott <> schrieb am Do., 13. Okt. 2016 um
> 13:01 Uhr:
>> From: regext [] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 6:39 PM
>> To:
>> 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
>> ([
>> ] 
>> <
>> _epp-2Dextensions_epp-2Dextensions.xhtml&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk
>> bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=j_g0CPoOfa
>> yy8JPCenR549u2iepTER9Ir4G4S_m42Og&s=FUbx2HNpnion4HnWAMsqqG7IThJLIpW73vy7WtY7_
>> ds&e=> ) 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.
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> <
>> stinfo_regext&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=Vbweci
>> UcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=j_g0CPoOfayy8JPCenR549u2iepTER9Ir4G4S
>> _m42Og&s=_xQjrMPQuVbjr6nwlSzgOs2dJFrFWmrggSifbvXwfug&e=>
> -- 
> Ulrich Wisser 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

regext mailing list

Reply via email to