FINAL REMINDER to all WG members (all mailing list subscribers): Please do indicate your preference as describe in the message included below. The Chairs would really appreciate hearing from new voices that have not been directly involved in advancing this work.
The poll closes on Wednesday, 27 August 2025, at 1200 UTC Thanks to all who have already responded, Jorge, Antoin, and Jim On 18 Aug 2025, at 10:36, James Galvin wrote: > REMINDER to all WG members (all mailing list subscribers): > > Please do reply on list to the included message. The Chairs would really > appreciate hearing from new voices that have not been directly involved in > advancing this work. > > Thanks, > > Jorge, Antoin, Jim > > > > On 13 Aug 2025, at 8:55, James Galvin 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
