Mario, there's a basic problem with the approach you're suggesting below. We can't "correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with what decided".
The "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream" statement provides guidance for what we can and cannot do: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ Note these statements: "Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC." "Errata are classified as “technical” or “editorial”." "Technical errata are expected to be things that would likely cause significant misunderstandings of the technical specification and might result in faulty implementations if they are not corrected." "Technical items that have a clear resolution in line with the original intent should be classified as Verified. If the resolution is not clear or requires further discussion, the report should be classified as Hold for Document Update. In both cases, only items that are clearly wrong should be considered." "Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might be different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should generally be Rejected. Significant clarifications should not be handled as errata reports and need to be discussed by the relevant technical community." "Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an IANA registration procedure, to something that might be different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should be Rejected." What I'm proposing (report the inconsistency in 9083 and make the "lunarNIC" vs. "lunarNIC_level_0" thing consistent) is aligned with the above. The current text is obviously causing significant misunderstandings of the technical specification, and my proposed change* matches the intended consensus when the document was approved. The desire to make more significant changes to 9083, to include any changes focused on how to identify and manage versioning, really needs to be addressed independently. Scott * I'm willing to request that instances of "lunarNIC" be changed to "lunarNIC_level_0" if that's preferred. Andy and I believe that the original intent was for the values to be consistent, and this change would also align with use of "rdap_level_0". > -----Original Message----- > From: regext <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions > Approach Analysis v2) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Hi folks, > > I invite you to consider that, currently, rdap-reverse-search and, > potentially, > three other RDAP-related docs are blocked waiting for the end of this > discussion. > > In addition, it seems to me more logical, first, to decide how RDAP > exentions > must be treated and, then, correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with what > decided. > > Once agreed on which approach to follow, we could proceed in parallel with > the correction of RFC 9083 and the writing of a document defining the > guidelines for extending RDAP. > > For the sake of completeness and comprehension, such a document might > include the scenarios Jasdip has described in his analysis. > > > Best, > > Mario > > > Il 15/06/2022 19:27, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: > > Thanks for doing all this work, Jasdip. Now we have to decide what to do > with > > all of this information. > > > > As a first step, I think we need to submit errata to address issues with > > the > > existing RFC(s). RFC 9083 uses both "lunarNIC" and "lunarNIC_level_0". At > a > > minimum, Andy and I agree that "lunarNIC_level_0" should be replaced > with > > "lunarNIC". > > > > Rationale: Section 2.1 of RFC 9083 describes "lunarNIC" as an example of > > an > > identifying prefix and includes examples of this value being used as an > > extension prefix. Section 4.1 says "For example, if the fictional Registry > > of > > the Moon wants to signify that their JSON responses are conformant with > their > > registered extensions, the string used might be "lunarNIC_level_0". We > believe > > that 4.1 and 2.1 are inconsistent and that they can be made consistent by > > changing "lunarNIC_level_0" with "lunarNIC" in 4.1. > > > > Additional errata may be needed. If so, where, and what else needs to be > done? > > > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > > regext mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sPv- > dLzvvqhNDXbiOOjohSnIO97wGQlAwNMpaY3C1_JwFw8ZcW5yQKcqwEMjjI4a > wA-Jl-e-tV4WSuYkK6ga2H5oLbNJuwp-O9KiMNKynBi1Mkn0Bv_AZ8rq2G- > Dajc2YkeBA8viu7YJWWAr4AL74OjYAIXKkLYhP7srUtpD9M94cWjRPcUMlQmtS > DKU33bc5zTBP1RbMJOXmxIuxOlu8vd4DhsVN9gzqOWeoHdCi- > uCH9HX3xgUp6w1- > zSiYr0K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext > > -- > Dr. Mario Loffredo > Technological Unit “Digital Innovation” > Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) > National Research Council (CNR) > via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy > Phone: +39.0503153497 > Web: http://secure- > web.cisco.com/1tDmAE3yEIWzsMXoMIliAb7B8sxyrzbH1sGKAJgZa_qRqMiFfP > STq4tq2ieXF83omlH12rdACydGrVu4sEPz9UTOExDvMKGC4wsoXQx71DAE- > xr3l6jIFv200l9aKQE_149dEbt_ystXWGuWxMjIJXeEIce2zpyuBNc27m43gVjK_c > o23TUyEQWCsfQHD8H1lsLQpc3OGoz_05I0AwljSDG3vwc5vV8plppwhhkS2z9C > TqYsdnpctlwEXIYGToCuF/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sPv- > dLzvvqhNDXbiOOjohSnIO97wGQlAwNMpaY3C1_JwFw8ZcW5yQKcqwEMjjI4a > wA-Jl-e-tV4WSuYkK6ga2H5oLbNJuwp-O9KiMNKynBi1Mkn0Bv_AZ8rq2G- > Dajc2YkeBA8viu7YJWWAr4AL74OjYAIXKkLYhP7srUtpD9M94cWjRPcUMlQmtS > DKU33bc5zTBP1RbMJOXmxIuxOlu8vd4DhsVN9gzqOWeoHdCi- > uCH9HX3xgUp6w1- > zSiYr0K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
