On 07-11-2025 11:56 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
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.
Scott, I believe this is incorrect. The IETF XML registry DOES allow registrations of any URI. The requirement for an RFC only applies to registrations in which the URI is an IETF params URN (urn:ietf:params...).
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?
Do we mean one adopted by an IETF wg? Then yes. Otherwise no.
Should we allow registration of an inactive or abandoned Internet-Draft knowing that the draft might not proceed to RFC status?
Again, are we talking about drafts adopted by an IETF working group? Yes, with a note in the registry saying "work in-progress, specification is unstable". Otherwise no.
Should we require non-IETF EPP extensions to register their URIs using non-IETF namespaces?
Yes.
There will be other things to consider once we have agreement on the answers to these questions.
Correct, such as what is the point of a provisional registration if inactive registrations are allowed. If we wish to drive this to conclusion quickly, I suggest a virtual interim meeting. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
