On 10/21/25 14:23, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
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.
So the IETF should sanction a process whereby the IETF's own BCP is being
violated? Then what is the point of having namespaces in EPP if they can be
violated? (which also brings up the issue that the DEs should be checking to
make sure new registrations aren't re-using URIs that are already registered)
Also, what happens if the IETF un-abandons the work?
The point I was attempting to make above is that if an implementation can change within
the WG process, it can change outside of it as well. That is, the registration of the
"abandoned" extension should have changed to use a non-conflicted URI.
Also, the point of the IANA registry is interoperability. To that end, mistakes
made in the past should not continued to be made in the future.
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
