> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pawel Kowalik <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:14 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Gould, James <[email protected]>;
> draft-ietf-regext-ext- [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: WG Last Call:
> draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-
> epp-00 (Ends 2025-10-27)
>
> I like the idea. Let's see what others say.
[SAH] Here's a more specific proposal. In Section 2.1:
OLD:
URIs proposed in extensions (XML namespace and schema registration requests are
commonly found in EPP extensions) should be evaluated for both syntactic and
semantic correctness. For example, IETF namespaces should be reserved for IETF
specifications.
NEW:
URIs proposed in extensions (XML namespace and schema registration requests are
commonly found in EPP extensions) should be evaluated for both syntactic and
semantic correctness. For example, IETF namespaces should be reserved for IETF
specifications. URIs should be registered in the IETF XML Registry [RFC 3688]
as appropriate.
In Section 2.2.1, describe the complete set of possible document status values:
OLD:
The document status ("Informational", "Standards Track", "Other", etc.) of the
specification document. For documents that are not RFCs, this will always be
"Other".
NEW:
The document status of the specification document. For RFC documents, the
possible set of values includes "Standards Track", "Informational",
"Experimental", "Historic", and "BCP" as described in Sections 4 and 5 of RFC
2026 [RFC2026]. For documents that are not RFCs, this will always be "Other".
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
