+1 for an interim. > On 11 Nov 2025, at 00:30, Hollenbeck, Scott > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2025 7:31 AM >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: The IETF XML registry and the EPP >> Extensions >> >> 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 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...). > > [SAH] Right, I should have said "prohibits registration of XML schema and > namespace URIs that use an IETF params URN". > >>> 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. > > [SAH] This is a good idea. We're still getting different opinions and live > discussion is probably the best way to find common ground. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
-- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
