> -----Original Message----- > From: Gould, James <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 9:21 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; [email protected]; draft-ietf- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: WG Last Call: > draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry- > epp-00 (Ends 2025-10-27) > > 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. > > Scott, > > I believe the language needs to be "IETF namespaces SHOULD be reserved for > IETF specifications" to cover the use case of the registration of implemented > Internet Drafts that have been abandoned by a working group. This case came > into play for the registration of "Verification Code Extension for the > Extensible > Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" that is associated with the abandoned draft-ietf- > regext-verificationcode-06. The ICANN RST 2.0 requires for the extensions to > be > registered in the EPP extension registry, which then required the > registration of > the implemented "Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning > Protocol (EPP)" (draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-06) that would not be > able to > register the IETF namespace. I believe the same use case applies to the > abandoned IDN Mapping draft in draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap-02, which has been > implemented by many registries and registrars. Changing of the namespace is > not an option based on the implementation impact and interoperability with the > registrars. This is a true corner case, but it needs to be covered with a > SHOULD > instead of a MUST.
[SAH] I could use some additional perspectives on this, people. Andy is saying MUST. Jim is saying SHOULD. More input would be helpful. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
