Jim, Can we setup the meeting to ensure that Mario is able to attend in person on Tuesday? I have a concern that these three drafts are actively competing and impacting the culture of the working group. We can always agree to disagree and move forward with complementary solutions, but I don't get a sense that we're moving in a positive direction.
I don't believe that the working group should have working group documents that are in active competition with each other. One option is if we can't work through the competition issues with the three individual drafts that we drop all three drafts and regroup with the co-editors on a single draft if a common set of goals can be agreed to. In the future, for the good of the culture of the working group, the working group should not adopt drafts that have any chance of competing. These three drafts were adopted by the working group at the same time with the understanding that we would work together to move them forward. When rdap-extensions was adopted, I envisioned that it would tackle the forms of RDAP extensions with guidelines for those forms, in the same way that RFC 3735 "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" does for EPP, but it is focused on extension identifiers and extension versioning that overlaps and competes with rdap-versioning. To make rdap-x-media-type complementary with rdap-versioning, rdap-versioning made implementation of rdap-x-media-type a requirement for servers and made it a choice with the query parameter defined in rdap-versioning for clients. That complementary element of rdap-versioning is threatened by rdap-x-media-type only supporting the passing of extension identifiers and not extension version identifiers (extends the extension identifier to pass additional versioning information) and section B.2 "Inappropriate Use of Query Parameters" of rdap-x-media-type attacking the use of the query parameter defined in rdap-versioning. I've posted on the mailing list that guidance for the use of query parameters, as a form of extensibility, should be covered in rdap-extensions and not in an appendix of rdap-x-media-type. 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 7/10/26, 6:07 PM, "James Galvin" <[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. The Chairs have received requests both on list and privately to please help facilitate finding a consensus as to how to proceed with these three documents. https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PkLwDIQWFX1craLvysDu6edCkjyrFJORrig7s-AGFQMAneFyNcEKlADulCcmC6didg-eelFSW4IG0XzuxJhUW7m1TwOHRJzjgwcjG8DzQH-MIzx27xupGexThvKKHCe-ROSeLlDhxQ463NSh8V7zcim1poJWKICqpTSGhpsqK7hZCYYjPtayVKF7F2tUQVPINUVQkNnZsDPwgsjIY7hx9PhoJgzjc46BTwXeaeMGZkuU_4tMZfo8TzkwVpAKx3tTiyVgTM1gEXaTKBrD9Wfx8zAsV6kSxJd3lU-Y3vWjGbU/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions%2F <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PkLwDIQWFX1craLvysDu6edCkjyrFJORrig7s-AGFQMAneFyNcEKlADulCcmC6didg-eelFSW4IG0XzuxJhUW7m1TwOHRJzjgwcjG8DzQH-MIzx27xupGexThvKKHCe-ROSeLlDhxQ463NSh8V7zcim1poJWKICqpTSGhpsqK7hZCYYjPtayVKF7F2tUQVPINUVQkNnZsDPwgsjIY7hx9PhoJgzjc46BTwXeaeMGZkuU_4tMZfo8TzkwVpAKx3tTiyVgTM1gEXaTKBrD9Wfx8zAsV6kSxJd3lU-Y3vWjGbU/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions%2F> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZzdC871DLDgWLJD-yiZeFlC3r50aY1APU08lDsuwTALxs-6QCgsU0GuctffnVo7iveEURpeCDPyshL7WcT1N33qvakmQptdXONE4y5TPI7roysIP7U_ZQNcRfpfbvV2-shfIOw94ApDSpoXc0HUY64v80vQ2s_GV_n9fn3RFIwqKd0Us_9Cuzm9bAUo5Vw5JIuQ_TluxvHQoxgbXcXFdpkiybDkOSVwbPJa6G6TykCfYu0KCYwyX4vQ-CajEckWN1bIc4nWKpWiBpd-BEtw56ieqqO9Xr64eGLjC6fy61nA/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type%2F <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZzdC871DLDgWLJD-yiZeFlC3r50aY1APU08lDsuwTALxs-6QCgsU0GuctffnVo7iveEURpeCDPyshL7WcT1N33qvakmQptdXONE4y5TPI7roysIP7U_ZQNcRfpfbvV2-shfIOw94ApDSpoXc0HUY64v80vQ2s_GV_n9fn3RFIwqKd0Us_9Cuzm9bAUo5Vw5JIuQ_TluxvHQoxgbXcXFdpkiybDkOSVwbPJa6G6TykCfYu0KCYwyX4vQ-CajEckWN1bIc4nWKpWiBpd-BEtw56ieqqO9Xr64eGLjC6fy61nA/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type%2F> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Uu0nzHd8i9-853DqGHEYCxoU0kZvgjpgPwYiu1LoMKKzZD8uEAtJltqsjODEhkd_3ApTmk4i6k9uzuPIoEfuRPmJ0rsM7vJNGb_96WBbxgKw1THV6Yx4rcFwnmYoUP4hiyZ0SNFmhMeMMzI7-bPiIpeRgnJ6gBZ0mZF-sNt-BJhtMSmupqqOLOo3jHYUac0CYMg8MH79STUU2FmYkEH-z8yqlB1hs-5bo-EkAimt8e0uffJI4gvZgRzOUn93AudI9PVmawUsFAZkRXNZbywHz5G6ReMoJCUwFwxqFB-cZvk/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning%2F <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Uu0nzHd8i9-853DqGHEYCxoU0kZvgjpgPwYiu1LoMKKzZD8uEAtJltqsjODEhkd_3ApTmk4i6k9uzuPIoEfuRPmJ0rsM7vJNGb_96WBbxgKw1THV6Yx4rcFwnmYoUP4hiyZ0SNFmhMeMMzI7-bPiIpeRgnJ6gBZ0mZF-sNt-BJhtMSmupqqOLOo3jHYUac0CYMg8MH79STUU2FmYkEH-z8yqlB1hs-5bo-EkAimt8e0uffJI4gvZgRzOUn93AudI9PVmawUsFAZkRXNZbywHz5G6ReMoJCUwFwxqFB-cZvk/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning%2F> It does seem that there is an impasse, which is unfortunate. However, The Chairs remain ever hopeful that we will find a path forward. What we propose is to get the principals together while we are all present in Vienna. The Chairs will prepare an agenda and review concerns and preferences among the principals. The objective is for the Chairs to be able to identify the rough consensus, if not full consensus, in the room. The Chairs will provide a summary of the discussion to the list and assert the identified consensus for review by the working group. we will be looking for objections from other working group members and, of course, ask that if you object you provide a technical explanation with new information to support it. The goal is to finalize these documents, or to indicate explicit next steps to be completed that will finalize these documents. They have been on our milestone list for years and worse they are about two years overdue. The only meeting slot that we have available to do this is Wednesday morning, 22 July, in the first time slot of the day 9am-11am local time. Our AD has offered the IESG meeting room for this discussion and it is currently reserved for us. Sorry folks, there is no remote participation available but we believe this will be okay as we will be reporting to the working group for the final decision. Although anyone is welcome to join, the principals the Chairs would like to be present for this discussion are as follows. Jim Gould Tom Harrison Paweł Kowalik Mario Loffredo Andy Newton Jasdip Singh We should appreciate if those on that list would indicate if they are available for this discussion. As long as we have a quorum, as determined at the discretion of the Chairs and the AD, we will have the discussion and report to the mailing list. If for some reason this meeting cannot happen, then the Chairs will organize an interim meeting in the weeks following the IETF. Of course, we’d prefer not to do this so please do try to accommodate this meeting in your busy schedules. Thanks to all! Jorge, Antoin, and Jim _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
