> -----Original Message----- > From: Antoin Verschuren <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 11:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: > draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp- > 01.txt > > 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. > > Folks, > > I like this new text explaining I-D’s do not qualify as stable documentation > for > “Specification required”, and only IETF documents can use IETF namespaces as > a summary of our interim meeting. > > However, we forgot one use case where we have precedents. > Proprietary EPP extensions that cannot reach consensus as standard can also > choose the path to publish an informational RFC describing the proprietary > extension through the individual submission track. > This is stable documentation for a proprietary extension. > This happened for example to RFC9095 (Strict Bundling) Since this is an IETF > document, it did use the IETF schema and namespaces.
[SAH] In my reply to Andy I noted that 9095 should not have used IETF namespace URIs because the RFC didn't go through the IETF consensus process. The experts for that registry make mistakes, too. 😊 > To give correct guidance to authors and designated experts: > > -Is registration of XML namespaces also required for proprietary extensions > when they apply for EPP extension registry registrations? The texts is now not > clear, and registration of XML schema and namespaces might be a hurdle to > register a proprietary extension. (Remember the goal of the registry is to > identify proprietary extensions to harmonise into standard extensions even > when they use incompliant namespaces) -Are informational RFCs allowed to > use IETF namespaces? [SAH] The draft text says this: "XML schema and namespace URIs must be registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688]." That covers both IETF extensions and proprietary extensions. > My guidance would be: > -For IETF Standards track EPP extensions, XML schema and namespace URIs > must be registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in > RFC 3688, These URIs must use the IETF namespaces. > -For proprietary (non-IETF Standards track) EPP extensions, it is encouraged > to register XML schema and namespace URIs in the IETF XML Registry. > -Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications. [SAH] Agreed, except for proprietary extensions. I prefer the current text, which says that the URIs must be registered. This includes proprietary extensions. They just can't use IETF namespace URIs. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
