I believe that the guidance should be to encourage and not require, since the purpose of the EPP Extension Registry is not to force uniqueness of XML namespaces or XML schemas, but to publish the existence of a mature EPP extension specifications. If there is the need for including the XML namespaces used in the EPP extensions in the EPP Extension Registry, then let's add that for visibility. I don't believe that proprietary EPP extensions should be allowed to use IETF namespaces and IETF XML schemas.
-- 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 1/13/26, 2:08 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 1/13/26 1:46 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > 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. My take-away on this item was not "encouragement" but "requirement". "Encouragement" is what we have today and it is not working. -andy _______________________________________________ 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]
