I support Standards Track - Maarten
> Op 7 jan 2026, om 22:57 heeft James Galvin <[email protected]> het volgende > geschreven: > > 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact/ > > 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://meetecho-player.ietf.org/playout/?session=IETF124-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://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9553.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] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
