Pawel, I don’t have an issue with marking the registration accordingly, but I don’t believe it should be removed from the registry. We want the EPP extension registry to include the set of implemented EPP extensions, so keeping the implemented extensions in the registry with an appropriate status is a priority. Think about our experience discovering the set of implemented EPP extensions in the wild for the EPP Extensibility and Extension Analysis, where we analyzed 67 EPP extensions and the EPP extension registry only has 39 registrations or 58% of the extensions. It would be better if we could get that percentage to 90% or above.
-- JG [cid87442*[email protected]] 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/> From: Pawel Kowalik <[email protected]> Date: Friday, November 7, 2025 at 10:18 AM To: James Gould <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: The IETF XML registry and the EPP Extensions Jim, Andy, I would not be against removing provisional entries from the registry, in a way. I would even go further, that a provisional entry should have a deadline, which could be prolonged, but with clear indication when an entry will drop or be marked as "abandoned" / "discontinued" from the registry. Releasing a name can have imho possible interoperability consequences, so I would not do that to remove the registration entirely. Talking of external consequences, let me say: let's not make someone else's problem to our problem. As soon as the registry would tell clearly "abandoned" / "discontinued", the consumers of this registry may decide on their own policies and rules what to do about it. On our own playfield, having a clear and transparent view on what is the process behind, REGEXT may find a different motivation not to let such situation to happen. Kind Regards, Pawel On 07.11.25 09:40, Gould, James wrote: Andy, I believe the provisional registration could work as long it doesn't get removed if the draft becomes abandoned, where that would meet the goal of publicizing the existence of an EPP extension in the EPP extension registry. In the EPP Extensibility and Extension Analysis it would great when we the extensions were in the EPP extension registry. I don't like using a non-IETF namespace for the IETF drafts, where starting with the registry fee extension we started using point version IETF namespaces for the EPP extension drafts that changed to "1.0" after WGLC. That has worked very well to support development and deployment during the progression of the IETF draft with the needed level of isolation. We implemented and deployed two point versions of the registry fee extension prior to transitioning to the final "1.0" version in the RFC, which helped to improve the draft. I would stay away from attempting to register the XML namespace in the XML registry for drafts, since they aren't final. Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]><mailto:applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/><http://secure-web.cisco.com/1BxrWEEAqJouGZgxo-FbpvOHXtwZ7H3St9p4cFv5_LAdzy9wsn0hKeD25qyuR7uHAXOG72SonkCh8LJuISd6lpHoPwlnYyY1f9YakuL3SlJkTvhGdJm3Omd-hj7uVxaHPzA9TQvFPmLGrkNy967F0zmWasJ4ZOkKRuDuJhVBEsRW4DjYra0c92Mj9LAoQSRu1Z-EPpqFpDXEn_qBWc_inDWFNwQGZ2pwKBrOxhc-2GQoBarkbS1tW78r1yAzfu0ccCJcKsDQccagfibBHRhpjzFUEfP9_xv7usp439WBb1Rs/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> On 11/7/25, 9:20 AM, "Andrew Newton (andy)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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. On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 8:38 PM Gould, James <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: To allow I-Ds, the EPP extensions registry could be modified to allow "provisional" or "early" registrations that sidestep the XML namespace registration requirements. This is done in many IANA protocol registries setup by the IETF, and IANA knows how to periodically check on provisional and early registrations. JG - This is an unnecessary step to fulfil the undefined goal in RST 2.0 and the Next Round Registry Agreement. Setting aside this incorrect assertion, if you don't like the "provisional" registrations then another solution is to use a URI like "file:///dev/null"<file:///dev/null> in I-Ds and have IANA assign the URN at publication time according to the provisions of RFC 3688 via a note in the IANA considerations section to both IANA and the RFC editor (for changing examples). This means I-Ds would not be registered until publication. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
