Hi,I think it's ok to say MUST but same time not apply this retrospectively to already registered extensions. Similar approach as proposed in the RDAP extensions draft. Fixing those sins of the past will cause more problem than it solves.
Also I see additional question: what makes an "IETF specification"? Taking this literarily one would not be allowed to register an extension with IETF namespace until it becomes RFC. Taking into account extension development, some deployments happen already in the mean time. So the choice is to:
a) have different namespace during development -> downside is change of namespace in already existing deployments and clients after it becomes RFC.
b) say that drafts under IETF change control (so from the point of WG adoption) can use IETF namespace, which is more pragmatic approach imho and solves the issue with abandoned drafts, as those even if abandoned still remain under IETF change control
Kind Regards, Pawel On 21.10.25 17:44, Andy Newton wrote:
On 21-10-2025 11:04 AM, Gould, James wrote: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?James,Extensions can use any URI. There is no requirement that they MUST use an IETF URN.-andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
