Hi all, I vote for option A, I think we can trust this WG to thoroughly interrogate any actual proposed use of bare identifiers to ensure that it's sensible.
Ruth On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 at 13:56, James Galvin <gal...@elistx.com> wrote: > During our IETF123 meeting the status of “RDAP Extensions” < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions/> was > discussed. Currently there is one technical issue that has been under > discussion on the mailing list for some time. It was agreed during the > meeting that the Chairs would seek to bring the discussion to a close by > asking the open question on the mailing list. > > The Chairs need your response. We would most like to hear from folks who > have not had much to say up to this point. > > The question is what should the status of bare identifiers be in the “RDAP > Extensions” draft? > > Three possible answers have emerged. The Chairs are opening a poll by > presenting the three choices and asking folks to indicate the option they > would most prefer to support. > > Please note - this is not a discussion. If you have a clarifying question > you may ask and the Chairs will respond. The Chairs are asking you to > indicate which option you would most prefer to support. > > The three options are as follows. > > A. Always disallow them - Bare identifiers can cause confusion because > they do not define a structured namespace. The bare identifiers that > already exist in the RDAP Extensions Registry would be permitted to remain > as specified; new bare identifiers would not be allowed. > > B. Always allow them - They already exist in the RDAP Extensions Registry > and thus we know that they can work. The IANA processes ensure there are > no duplicate identifiers. > > C. Only allow them if it is REQUIRED to solve the problem being considered > - This option is a compromise that would require that guidance exist in > order to evaluate whether or not the bare identifier is the only solution. > > Some additional background information you may find helpful as you > consider which option you would most prefer to support can be found in the > following IAB guidance: > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5218#autoid-15 > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1958#page-4 > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9413#name-protocol-decay > > Also note that given there are already some bare identifiers defined in > the IANA RDAP Extension Registry, all existing extensions will remain as > currently specified. The response selected here only applies to new > extensions. > > This poll will close on Wednesday, 1200 UTC, 27 August 2025. Please > select an option and indicate your choice on the list by replying to this > message. > > Recall from the meeting that the Chairs proposed that option 1 was the > best course of action. > > Thank you for your prompt attention, > > Jorge, Antoin, and Jim > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
