Thanks, Jim. I'd very much like to discuss the idea of having an IDN extension on the Standards Track, but it begs the question of "what is the WG's IDN strategy?". We don't have one, so how this draft relates to existing extensions is something we need to decide. I'd very much like to see opinions from the people who created those other extensions, if they're still around. Do they agree that this draft is the one to rule them all? Do they agree with the scope? I agree that the draft fits within the WG's charter, but the charter doesn't address the topic of IDNs at all.
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: James Galvin <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 10:24 AM > To: Scott Hollenbeck <[email protected]> > Cc: Antoin Verschuren <[email protected]>; draft-galvin-regext-epp- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [regext] Call for adoption: draft-galvin-regext-epp-variants-05 > (Ends 2026-05-25) > > Speaking as a participant: > > These are very good questions Scott. I’ll make two comments in response. > > First, one obvious difference is that we’re proposing this document to be > on the Standards Track. So, if we successfully find consensus in the > working group for this document then that’s how we’ll be listed against > those proprietary extensions. > > Second, it has always been our intention to answer these questions. > Personally, I believe it is clearly within the Charter of REGEXT, and thus > this > working group, to seek to unify compatible extensions in the registry into a > single standard. It is my opinion that that is one of the primary reasons > this working group exists. In prior versions of the internet draft you may > recall seeing a comment to effect of answering these questions directly in > the document so the intention was always clear. It was moved to being an > issue for the draft, but that’s not visible yet to the working group. If the > document is adopted by the working group we will be moving the > document to the IETF GitHub and we’ll use the Issue Tracker there to call > this and other issues out to help manage the document. > > Thanks for the call out! > > Jim > > > On 12 May 2026, at 6:56, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > > > I don't yet have an opinion. I'd like to understand how this extension > compares to the other EPP variant extensions that are already registered in > the EPP extension registry, including: > > > > https://www.tango-rs.com/epp/tango-idn-epp-extension.pdf > > > > https://corenic.org/epp-extensions/core-idn-epp-extension-1.0.pdf > > > > https://ngboss.ngtld.cn/EN/view/noside/cnnic-idn-epp-extension- > 1.0.html > > > > Is the goal to somehow unify all of these extensions, or will this be yet > another EPP IDN extension? > > > > Scott > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Antoin Verschuren via Datatracker <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:31 AM > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: [regext] Call for adoption: draft-galvin-regext-epp-variants-05 > >> (Ends 2026-05-25) > >> > >> This message starts a regext WG Call for Adoption of: > >> draft-galvin-regext-epp-variants-05 > >> > >> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-05-25 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document defines an EPP extension allowing clients to learn > >> about and manipulate a set of objects in a shared central repository > >> that are necessarily tied to the same entity (typically domain > >> objects whose names are equivalent in a registry-defined way and are > >> tied to a single registrant). The extension supports multiple > >> registries with a shared definition of equivalence using a shared > >> central repository. > >> > >> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support > >> adoption > >> of this Internet-Draft by the regext WG. Comments to explain your > >> preference > >> are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message > and > >> include this message in your response. > >> > >> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the > Intellectual > >> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2]. > >> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the > >> provisions > >> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. > >> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be > >> found at [3]. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ > >> > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galvin-regext-epp-variants/ > >> > >> There is also an HTML version available at: > >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-galvin-regext-epp-variants-05.html > >> > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-galvin-regext-epp- > variants- > >> 05 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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]
