> -----Original Message----- > From: Pawel Kowalik <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 12:31 PM > To: Andy Newton <[email protected]>; Gould, James <[email protected]>; > Hollenbeck, Scott <[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) > > 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
[SAH] Thanks for the input, Pawel. I agree that I'd rather not see any change applied retroactively. With respect to choice "b" above, the issue is that RFC 3688 says this: "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." Drafts aren't RFCs, so I doubt that a request to register a value in the IETF namespace with an I-D reference specification will be approved. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
