> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2025 7:31 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: The IETF XML registry and the EPP > Extensions > > 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 07-11-2025 11:56 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding people's positions on the > > issues > associated with registering Internet-Drafts and non-IETF specifications in the > EPP extension registry. I'm going to ask some basic questions that I'd like > people > to answer to help me understand where we agree and disagree. These > questions have simple "yes" or "no" answers. As given information, we know > that RFC 3688 prohibits registration of XML schema and namespace URIs where > the associated specification isn't an RFC. > > Scott, I believe this is incorrect. The IETF XML registry DOES allow > registrations > of any URI. The requirement for an RFC only applies to registrations in which > the URI is an IETF params URN (urn:ietf:params...).
[SAH] Right, I should have said "prohibits registration of XML schema and namespace URIs that use an IETF params URN". > > Should we allow registration of an active Internet-Draft on a provisional > > basis > with the registered entity expected to be updated when the draft proceeds to > RFC status? > > Do we mean one adopted by an IETF wg? Then yes. Otherwise no. > > > Should we allow registration of an inactive or abandoned Internet-Draft > knowing that the draft might not proceed to RFC status? > > Again, are we talking about drafts adopted by an IETF working group? Yes, with > a note in the registry saying "work in-progress, specification is unstable". > Otherwise no. > > > > > Should we require non-IETF EPP extensions to register their URIs using non- > IETF namespaces? > > Yes. > > > There will be other things to consider once we have agreement on the > answers to these questions. > > Correct, such as what is the point of a provisional registration if inactive > registrations are allowed. > > If we wish to drive this to conclusion quickly, I suggest a virtual interim > meeting. [SAH] This is a good idea. We're still getting different opinions and live discussion is probably the best way to find common ground. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
