On 21-10-2025 1:46 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Newton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 10:18 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: 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.
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?
[SAH] Nothing from the 3688 perspective, but there are ripple effects. Consider the following if we
change the current "should" to "MUST":
A working group draft exists, and there are multiple production
implementations. It uses IETF namespace URNs. The working group decides to stop
work on the draft for some reason. The implementations remain.
ICANN requires the registry implementer to ask IANA to register this EPP
extension in the IANA EPP extension registry as part of the Registry System
Testing (RST) process.
IANA asks the designated experts to review the registration request. The
template looks fine, but an expert notices the IETF namespace URNs. The expert
tells IANA that the URNs MUST be registered.
IANA forwards that request to the XML registry experts, who reject the request
because the specification isn't an RFC.
Does that mean that the request to register the EPP extension MUST also be
rejected unless the URNs are changed?
Once there is an implementation of a particular version of an I-D, does that
mean a WG or the IETF are no longer free to change the specification?
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
