Scott, Originally, I thought my answers would be dependent on the result of the RST 2.0 and the Next Round Base Registry Agreement requirement being addressed out of the IETF, but in the end my answers are the same. The driving goal should be to allow the registration of implemented EPP extensions for visibility, so we should be liberal in what's accepted. I would like to see a higher percentage of the EPP extensions that we found in the EPP Extensibility and Extension Analysis registered and I don't want to encourage breaking copyrights and forking implemented IETF draft extensions to proprietary. We should not require removal of registered draft extensions based on draft inactive or abandoned statuses; otherwise, we the visibility would be lost.
Should we allow registration of an active Internet-Draft on a provisional basis with the registered entity expected to be updated when the draft proceeds to RFC status? YES Should we allow registration of an inactive or abandoned Internet-Draft knowing that the draft might not proceed to RFC status? YES Should we require non-IETF EPP extensions to register their URIs using non-IETF namespaces? YES -- 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 11/7/25, 11:57 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[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. I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding people's positions on the issues associated with registering Internet-Drafts and non-IETF specifications in the EPP extension registry. I'm going to ask some basic questions that I'd like people to answer to help me understand where we agree and disagree. These questions have simple "yes" or "no" answers. As given information, we know that RFC 3688 prohibits registration of XML schema and namespace URIs where the associated specification isn't an RFC. Should we allow registration of an active Internet-Draft on a provisional basis with the registered entity expected to be updated when the draft proceeds to RFC status? Should we allow registration of an inactive or abandoned Internet-Draft knowing that the draft might not proceed to RFC status? Should we require non-IETF EPP extensions to register their URIs using non-IETF namespaces? There will be other things to consider once we have agreement on the answers to these questions. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
