On 02-06-2026 6:37 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Section 5, paragraph 1
Section 2 includes provisions for modifying and deleting existing
registration entries by registrants. Such requests MUST NOT be
granted if the requested action has operational implication on other
entities that deploy that extension, assuming that those entities can
be identified. This guidance can be overridden if the requested
action MUST be taken to comply with actions that are beyond the
control of the experts and/or IANA, e.g., to comply with legal
actions. Note that the registry does not include a history mechanism
and there is no way to track deleted entries once they have been
removed.
The second sentence in this paragraph makes the prohibition conditional:
if affected parties cannot be identified, the constraint does not apply
and the removal could proceed despite potential operational impact.
If this is the intended policy, a brief rationale should be provided.
If not, the language should be tightened.
[SAH] The operational implications can't be known if it's impossible to
identify operators. If a removal request is received, and the DEs make an
effort to identify operators to assess the operational implications of removal,
and they fail to identify operators, the removal request should be honored. The
intention here is to avoid handcuffing IANA and the DEs who will be required to
review a future removal request. Would this change help?
OLD
Such requests MUST NOT be granted if the requested action has operational
implication on other entities that deploy that extension, assuming that those
entities can be identified.
NEW.
Such requests can have operational implications for entities that deploy that
extension. Designated Experts who review these requests MUST assess the
operational implications of removal, and they MUST NOT approve the request if
operational implications are identified. The request MAY be granted if no
operational implications are identified.
Both the OLD and NEW need to be removed. They conflict with section 2.2.3. The point of
2.2.3 is that it is the judgement of the IESG if the original registrant is not making
the request. The "no operational implications" means that any excuse can be
given to block the action. It would be best to remove that entire paragraph.
-andy, as a participant
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
