Scott, I believe the language needs to be "IETF namespaces SHOULD be reserved for IETF specifications" to cover the use case of the registration of implemented Internet Drafts that have been abandoned by a working group. This case came into play for the registration of "Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" that is associated with the abandoned draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-06. The ICANN RST 2.0 requires for the extensions to be registered in the EPP extension registry, which then required the registration of the implemented "Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" (draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-06) that would not be able to register the IETF namespace. I believe the same use case applies to the abandoned IDN Mapping draft in draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap-02, which has been implemented by many registries and registrars. Changing of the namespace is not an option based on the implementation impact and interoperability with the registrars. This is a true corner case, but it needs to be covered with a SHOULD instead of a MUST.
Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 10/16/25, 8:21 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Newton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 3:00 PM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry- > epp-00 (Ends 2025-10-27) > > 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, > > I have the following comments: > > 152 for both syntactic and semantic correctness. For example, IETF > 153 namespaces should be reserved for IETF specifications. > > This should be changed to: > > IETF namespaces MUST be reserved for IETF specifications. > > I think we should also add the following: > > Extensions and any normative reference necessary to implement the > extension > MUST NOT be denoted with "work in-progress" or any similar description. [SAH] Those are both good suggestions. Thanks! Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
