Hello, James Gould wrote:
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.
I'm aware that ICANN requires registration in the EPP XML registry, but do they also strictly require the *namespace* to be registered as well? I happened to do both for our recent registration of the TANGO IDN extension, but I *think* ICANN would be OK with only the extension being registered.
Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
[SAH] I could use some additional perspectives on this, people. Andy is saying MUST. Jim is saying SHOULD. More input would be helpful.
Assuming that ICANN accepts registered extensions whose namespace isn't also registered, I'd tend to go with MUST, if only to avoid "glorifying" abandoned extensions via an IETF namespace in the registry.
/Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Thomas Corte Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: [email protected] Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
