Hi Jim, On 19.06.26 17:44, Gould, James wrote:
PK> I didn't say draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning is not compliant with STD 95 as such. I only say that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning shall not cross boundaries of what STD 95 tells. At the point where this draft is suggesting breaking change in the extension without corresponding update to the extension identifier, then the line would be crossed. As the matter of fact however, once this draft evolved to Point Versioning there is a clear indication in 4.2 that back compatibility is not of a concern of this versioning model. In this case I don't even see any conflict or contradiction with draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions. On the flip side the utility of this method to signal anything about compatibility vanished.Pawel,Thank you for your preferences and reasoning. Can others of the working group weigh in on the options?I don’t remember you raising an RFC 9083 compliance issue with the extension approach proposed by draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, which is an optional extension and any RDAP extension supporting point versioning in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning will include a normative reference to it. Can you please clarify what language in RFC 9083 represents a compliance issue for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning?
We did agree at IETF 121 that the extensions draft shall go through first, but that was before the extensions draft expanded the Extension Versioning section to include concrete proposals that is in scope for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning. The extensions draft was meant to clarify the confusion in the base RFCs, which Section 5.4 without the sub-sections does. This really becomes a scoping question for the working group, where draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning existed first (draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning-00 published in November 2022) to add the missing functionality for RDAP versioning, and then followed draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions (draft-newton-regext-rdap-extensions-00 published in June 2023), and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type (draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type-00 published May 2023). All three drafts were adopted by the working group in February 2024 with agreement to support them (Mario Loffredo is the document shepherd of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type and Jasdip Singh is the Document Shepherd of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning). What has progressed since then is the draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning adding full support for Opaque Versioning and revising Semantic Versioning to now Point Versioning based on feedback from the working group. There have been issues raised on the mailing list related to incompatibilities between the three drafts that has not been addressed. Below are some messages on the mailing lists for reference:
PK> I don't have anything to add on top of what Andy wrote already. Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
