I don't believe non-IETF XML namespaces need to be registered into the IETF XML Registry as a depedency to get registered into the EPP Extension Registry. The goal of the EPP Extension Registry is to publish the list of EPP extensions that have been defined either as proprietary extensions or IETF extensions that automatically get registered once they become an EPP RFC. I don't believe there is any intention to register IETF draft versions of extensions, since that should be handled via the IETF process. We don't need the EPP Extension Registry to be the gatekeeper of XML namespaces. I have not found a proprietary EPP extension URI conflict when non-IETF URIs have been used, so what problem is being solved with this?
-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 11/5/25, 3:47 PM, "Andy Newton" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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. Hi all, inline... On 04-11-2025 10:51 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > I had a chance to talk to both Andy and James while we're all in Montreal. > Here's what I think we all agreed on. If I'm wrong, please make corrections. > > We want to update the draft to explicitly disallow the registration of > Internet-Drafts or other "works in progress". Reference specifications should > be considered "final", though they can be updated using the change process > described in the draft. > > IETF URI namespaces MUST be reserved for IETF specifications. > > IETF XML namespace and schema URIs referenced in an IETF specification MUST > be registered in the IETF XML Registry defined by RFC 3688 before a request > to register an extension in the EPP extension registry will be accepted. > > Non-IETF XML namespace and schema URIs referenced in a non-IETF specification > SHOULD be registered in the IETF XML Registry defined by RFC 3688, but that's > not a requirement to register a non-IETF extension in the EPP extension > registry. I hate to be that guy, but... a SHOULD is to be followed by qualifiers (advisory for violation, etc...) otherwise it is just a preference (see the relevant IESG statement). Perhaps the advisory can be that registering into the 3688 registry is to avoid URI collisions (or claiming their use). -andy, as an individual _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
