+1 --
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 1/8/26, 9:29 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. Standards Track is fine. Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: James Galvin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 4:57 PM > To: REGEXT WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] RESPONSE REQUESTED: status of draft-ietf- > regext-rdap-jscontact: experimental or standard? > > 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. > > The question the Chairs are asking of the working group is, what should be the > intended status of the following working group document: > > Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses > https://secure- > web.cisco.com/1MhsxcNhK_CQLR5Nsddl2LZnz_7tQV1gCGcMs-hvumvYhK- > Gt_PaBgKjbHvuYU18s6xRbcUCxXXlhGNGKdoJk6qdZqzpg5wPzkKsgx1AyYRvw > 7Mk2Gu91y24YE5x7RgQKqge2sHz6VRiqPBC_0xOrJ4nYJ5x0ZpvaXgGVrQPiCe > Ui3oXmJg6shFBuJsaNusTwQpDb5WD5SrOY_qYrnE5ct_Ygsk- > gSivP3HDnYr5_aJOgvvsJrJUoezhN9Zz8SH9Lt- > GO4TGkvlc63gQjOQQe4JTN3lBGwm_3ItnfcVHLRB470IcP5wl4iwINGgLlaxg6/ > https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap- > jscontact%2F > > Please respond on the list and indicate your preference for one of the > following: > > 1. Experimental - this is the current indicated status > > 2. Standards Track - this is the requested status > > 3. SOMETHING ELSE - please say what you prefer and why > > If you have questions or concerns that you want addressed before responding > to this question, please reply on the list to this message with your question > or > concern. > > This question will remain open through at least Monday, 26 January. The > Chairs will review any open questions and responses, and assess consensus. If > necessary, if there is discussion in progress, the due date may be extended. > > > BACKGROUND > > This is a brief summary of the process and concerns that has brought us to re- > opening the question of the status of this document. If you have questions or > need additional details, please do reply to this message and ask on the list. > > When this document first came to the working group (in March 2021), we had > quite some discussion about the intended status over an extended period of > time. It was first put forward as a Standards Track document and remained > with that indication until Version 19, published in October 2024, when it was > decided by the Working Group that it should be an Experimental document. > Now at Version 23 it still indicates that intended status. > > At the time the decision to make it Experimental was made, the primary basis > for that decision is that the RDAP protocol, on the Standards Track, was > widely > deployed and it mandated support for jCard. It was believed by a majority > that putting an alternative on the Standards Track would create ambiguity > among the installed base. It was agreed that before moving the document > onto the Standards Track we should create an experiment and test the uptake. > The request of the authors was to specify the experiment in the document and > include how to evaluate the success of the experiment. > > Absent any new information the Chairs have been maintained that decision of > the working group. > > At this time new information has come forward and so a formal request to > reconsider the status of this document is appropriate. During our meeting at > IETF124 the working group had a brief discussion of the new information. You > can review the Meetecho recording and transcript here, shortly after time > mark 36 minutes: > > https://secure- > web.cisco.com/1W7VCFt8IFpxXTcyFNgqgwXx4O6f00_tOo1ybgfr25rqez08wz > TFlK_flULdQ5-lWMi- > vxEuvtZmGZBK8pbqGtVbJ7T3UYYsZLklgFLBJhBcbX4BJW5cbCXWo2isWo7o- > rOSDXm1xK7Bu5mIY6icQlHf1PSM5bhImhk-5k4XGV9c8ux3EcnG2A- > 4um7bEtsGvNdZw46SZicHffnTA92kdAqK6- > fbddh8WZyGD_UFT78Wi3hI4939Pr25W08ExNPTeAVtYOAM6MfA9UL1uYgks > aBaZmG34_9d8tKCey0pUaxVapby92RqwoNf1SjpHPg- > W/https%3A%2F%2Fmeetecho- > player.ietf.org%2Fplayout%2F%3Fsession%3DIETF124-REGEXT-20251106- > 1630 > > In addition to the continuing work by Mario Loffredo to implement the > specification, the jsContact specification has been published on the Standards > Track (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bHWm- > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bHWm-> > tTGkD5FTJVzG_ax5S1x_wu0x87NY0getTKWLnMCuntwyfLraqu4LshQjycMfsn > nGVu8MGNrxRLOgLwcg4B7zBLdUTEPDxrCqsFkk6lNmpCrX0tKf1QZma3JicIwg > RZlasXUkuPvajdFIUmi9SJhehBxBljX2MT7IM51AuklsA50tCAc3lNg3lkG3CcNvL > 0M8PKnPH4- > Hj7VvHpTTkeHlUns_H1w8X5H3hpZxKZBbyZx2SqE9vGOcIegYYI0qw0oXVaOU > 08Y0pDl-8Kkhz7Br_ZV- > CkiMgU5UvORU5SthHe9YMhrpHeN2IX3LND_/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc- > editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc9553.html) and the RPP Working Group is considering > the use of jsContact (see its mailing list and meeting summaries). > > Please respond with your preference. > > Thank you, > > Jorge, Antoin, and Jim > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ 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]
