Andy, My assertion is correct since I do remember agreeing to the extensions draft going first but I didn't remember having as much of a concern related to overlapping with the versioning draft. So, I went back and did a diff of the -00 draft to the current -13 draft. Many changes relate to a transition period and the approaches for the transition period. Sections 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.4, and 5.4.5 were added. I don't recall any discussion on the mailing list associated with these changes.
The Point Versioning approach for a transition period includes support for a default version with the ability for the client to specify a different supported version. This is how the transition of EPP extension versions has been handled with the use of the login services as the closest thing to the client parameters (query parameter or media type parameter), which we can reuse for RDAP. Any extension supporting the Point Versioning will include a normative reference to the versioning draft, since the versioning draft is a dependency. We can add normative language in the versioning draft to ensure this. You could add this approach (e.g., "Default Version with Client Override" or something like that) as an option and ensure that the other approaches explicitly apply only to Opaque Versioning. I don't want future confusion that the approaches somehow apply to versioning types other than Opaque Versioning. Another option is to move the transition options into the Opaque Versioning section of the versioning draft, where we can add a "Version Transition" sub-section to both the Opaque Versioning and the Point Versioning sections for clarity. Do you think that we can work together to make these adjustments to move things forward? Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/19/26, 1:40 PM, "Andy Newton" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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. On 6/19/26 11:44 AM, Gould, James wrote: > 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. That is a mischaracterization. The -00 had sections called "Extension Versioning", "Backwards-Compatible Changes" and "Backwards-Incompatible Changes". The language has been subsequently expanded in the natural course of working group discussion, often using awkward terms such as "successor" and "predecessor" instead of "old version" and "new version" specifically to avoid the conflict with your draft. Section 5.4 proposes nothing new and simply documents how RDAP works today to advise extension authors. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
