> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:05 PM > 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 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?
[SAH] Of course not, but you dodged *my* question. What are we trying to accomplish? If our goal is transparency, I see more benefit in allowing the EPP registration, not registering the squatted-on namespace URNs, and adding a note to the EPP registry entry that the registered extension references unregistered URNs than in rejecting the EPP registration. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
