Thanks Scott. Excerpting from the message you reference we have this:
There's one situation that will prevent an extension from being registered if we require pre-registration of the URIs, and that's registration of an extension that's specified in an Internet-Draft. I'm not talking about drafts that are on track to become RFCs. Any attempt to register those outside the normal IETF processes should be rejected. I'm talking about drafts that a WG has decided to stop work on such that the draft won't progress to RFC status. I’m concerned that this will prevent implementors from being able to build and deploy interim steps. Is this what we want? Jim On 6 Nov 2025, at 7:25, Hollenbeck, Scott 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: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/lP6AqBTfkHwOb9Wx0HT2EGgSbsE/ > > 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. > > Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
