Andy, So, adding the MUST language in draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp to register the namespace would not work with RST 2.0 and the requirement to register the implemented EPP extensions, which may include abandoned drafts. Is that correct?
-- 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 10/21/25, 10:17 AM, "Andy Newton" <[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. On 21-10-2025 9:25 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > [SAH] I could use some additional perspectives on this, people. Andy is > saying MUST. Jim is saying SHOULD. More input would be helpful. Unless I have missed something in the chain of RFCs, EPP relies on the urn namespace setup for IETF identifiers defined by RFC 3688. It says: NOTE: in order for a URN of this type to be assigned, the item being registered MUST have been through the IETF consensus process. Basically, this means that it must be documented in a RFC. What have I missed? -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
