Hi Scott, XML schema/namespace registration is not required however, so choice b) is still possible correct? We are deciding about registration rules for EPP extensions, and I think a toll gate of draft being WG adopted to registrier it with IETF namespace may be the right balance.
Viele Grüße / Kind regards Pawel Kowalik > On 22. Oct 2025, at 16:57, Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> -----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]
