On 1/22/26 7:37 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 1:44 PM >> To: Antoin Verschuren <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: >> draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp- >> 01.txt > > [snip] > >>> -Are informational RFCs allowed to use IETF namespaces? >> >> If you are asking about the XML registry, I believe they are allowed. > > [SAH] I think Antoin has identified an exception, Andy. Note this text from > RFC 3688: > > "NOTE: in order for a URN of this type to be assigned, the item being > registered MUST have been through the IETF consensus process. Basically, > this means that it must be documented in a RFC." > > Antoin mentioned RFC 9095. It's an Informational RFC, but it was published > using the Independent Submission stream. It didn't go through the IETF > consensus process. My understanding of 3688 suggests that 9095 shouldn't use > IETF namespace URIs because it didn't go through the IETF consensus process. > If my understanding is correct, we should indeed add text to the draft to > capture this case. Perhaps something like this in Section 2.1: > > "RFC documents published using the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) > stream meet that requirement. RFC documents published using the Independent > Submission stream do not meet that requirement." > > Scott
I missed that detail. Thanks for clarifying. Your text is looks good. -andy, no hats _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
