> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew (andy) Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 5:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] draft-hollenbeck-rfc7451bis-00 > > 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 Scott, > > Thanks for writing this draft. I reviewed it and think this group should > adopt it. > > It reads remarkably close to RFC 7451, which is well written in my opinion. In > fact, I think we should replace some of the clunkier parts of the > rdap-extensions > draft that have similar guidance with the language from this draft (and RFC). > > A couple of comments/questions: > > 132 URIs proposed in extensions (XML namespace and schema registration > 133 requests are commonly found in EPP extensions) should be evaluated > 134 for correctness. > > What is correctness here? Is it just URI syntax, or doing things like > checking for > the improper use of IETF namespaces? > > 136 The results of the evaluation should be shared via email with the > 137 registrant and the regext mailing list. Issues discovered during > the > 138 evaluation can be corrected by the registrant, and those > corrections > 139 can be submitted to the designated experts until the designated > 140 experts explicitly decide to accept or reject the registration > 141 request. The designated experts must make an explicit decision and > 142 that decision must be shared via email with the registrant and the > 143 regext mailing list. If the specification for an extension is an > 144 IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the > 145 designated expert. > > It is good that eppext has been changed to regext, however even with the > current RFC this doesn't appear to be happening... atleast I can't see it. I > am > still subscribed, technically, to eppext and I believe email to eppext is > going to > regext anyway (I know there was test a couple of months back, and I got that > email). > > Should we ask IANA to forward any initial and final registrations to the > regext > mailing list, as they do for other registries? > > 176 Document Status: The document status ("Informational", "Standards > 177 Track", etc.) of the specification document. For documents that > are > 178 not RFCs, this will always be "Informational". > > This is highly confusing, as "Informational" is an RFC status. If it is not > an RFC, > could the status be "Other" or something else that doesn't cause confusion. > > 291 ... At no time can > 292 a record be deleted from the registry. ... > > This makes DE decisions immune to appeal, which they should not be. And > there maybe other reasons for revoking registry entries, such as if the > references to the specification becomes sufficiently irrelevant (which is > different > to unavailable -- domain purchased by a bot site for instance). IMO, this > should > be replaced with "Records in this registry may be revoked with IESG Approval" > (see RFC 8126).
[SAH] I just submitted -01 to address Andy's feedback: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hollenbeck-rfc7451bis/ Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
