I didn't take detailed notes during the meeting, but I did capture two primary
thoughts that I want to share with the WG for discussion and confirmation. The
meeting was held to discussion a few open issues associated with
draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp ("the draft") and the registration of XML
Schema and namespace URIs that are associated with extension specifications.
The draft was written to update RFC 7451 and provide clear guidance for
management of the IANA "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP)" registry.
First, some given information. Both RFC 7451 and
draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp state that "This registry uses the
"Specification Required" policy." 7451 cites RFC 5226, which has been obsoleted
by RFC 8126. The draft cites 8126. 8126 includes this text:
"For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a designated
expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and their meanings must be
documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in
sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations
is possible."
My first take-away: I believe there was agreement that we want to have text in
draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp that clearly address the DE evaluation
criteria for proprietary extensions. That should include confirmation of
availability of a "permanent and readily available public specification", and
encouragement to register proprietary XML Schema and namespace URIs in the IETF
XML Registry. IETF namespace URIs MUST NOT be used in a proprietary extension.
Is this accurate?
My second take-away: we don't have agreement on whether or not we should allow
registration of extensions that are specified in an Internet-Draft. WG drafts
commonly say that "Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF)". As such, concern was raised that an
Internet-Draft doesn't meet the definition of a "permanent and readily
available public specification" because they're not permanent. We also have an
issue with requiring registration of IETF XML Schema and namespace URIs that
are described in an Internet-Draft because the IETF XML Registry registration
policy requires an RFC specification.
We need on-list discussion of both topics, please. Should "encouragement" be
replaced with "a requirement" with respect to proprietary extension URIs?
Should we explicitly note that extensions specified in an Internet-Draft MUST
NOT be registered?
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
