> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:57 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 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.
[SAH] When dealing with a non-RFC specification, registration of both the EPP extension and any XML schemas and/or namespaces is voluntary. There's no BCP (are you referring to BCP 81?) violation if no one requests registration of the values. So let's imagine that some submits a request to register an EPP extension, and an expert notices that an XML namespace hasn't been registered. If this draft says that the namespace MUST be registered in order to register the EPP extension, and the requestor refuses to do so for some reason, the extension registration request must be rejected and we lose information describing the extension. If the draft says SHOULD be registered, we can still register the EPP extension if the namespace isn't registered. I agree that it isn't optimal, but I'd prefer to have the extension registered without the namespace being registered as opposed to not registering the extension at all. As I wrote above, we can always add a note in the EPP extension registry that the namespace hasn't been registered for some reason. We're talking about adding a normative requirement that will have an impact on the DE review process. I'll repeat what I wrote yesterday about wanting more input to better measure consensus. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
