> -----Original Message----- > From: Gavin Brown <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 7:35 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > Cc: Jim Galvin <[email protected]>; Gould, James <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] [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. > > Hi Scott, > > > On 6 Nov 2025, at 12:25, Hollenbeck, Scott > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: James Galvin <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:41 PM > >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Gould, James <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] 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. > >> > >> Having been reflecting on this further there is one element for which > >> I would appreciate some additional discussion. > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> This concerns me because it seems to suggest that implementations of > >> early versions of a final specification would be prevented from being > >> able to “register” a specification. > >> > >> Is this intended (which I don’t think I could support) or am I > >> misunderstanding something? > > > > [SAH] Jim, the issue with trying to register an Internet-Draft is described > > here: > > [snip] > > > > In short, we can't register drafts AND require URI registration in the > > IETF XML > Registry. Maybe we can be creative and add the URIs to the EPP extension > registry so they don't have to be added to the XML registry. > > Perhaps we could stop using urn:ietf: URIs in Internet-Drafts. This is > something I > suggested in Madrid:
[SAH] Thanks for the reminder. That practice might help. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
