On 2/26/26 9:38 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > *From:*Gould, James <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2026 4:19 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: WG Last Call: > draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-03 (Ends 2026-03-09) > > > > *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. > > Hi, > > In reviewing draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-03 > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bgYj_zFv2XYognfRiZ8vTIxnZxNA-yN-bnB8wxbr_4p_XSMhUwfCGyRAgtn0ey2qhCLBz5mP7CLWLtUyWLEgDwR1DRx_fv2FT8aN3nBUWOHUICYkhMkkpx3So0dcQYcfleJodmje7zI0-lE1AFDmiVESUS7MEweRCxKQq_oNGMFBNOUQgM6JBQ_u4IYO3su_JqakdeH_UpaO7vAk5v4tnM-WW8_-MJPDn87zYYQvANW3hVnVm8p7z84BEj-_NacyRu7Un8hYxK_Pm3-W1ftC3QKNk4eGfBuCzdXgsiCtWAjlDGr3w4vvImLOfoqvjiUi/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-03>, > I have the following feedback items: > > 1. In Section 2.1.1, it's recommended change "XML schema and namespace URIs > MUST be registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in > RFC 3688 [RFC3688]" to "*Defined* XML schema and namespace URIs MUST be > registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in RFC > 3688 [RFC3688]" to make it clear that extensions are not required to have at > least one XML schema and namespace URI, which would not be the case for EPP > transport extensions. > > */[SAH] Let me suggest a different re-wording: “XML schemas, XML schema URIs, > and XML namespace URIs defined in the extension specification MUST be > registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in RFC > 3688 [RFC3688].” We need to include XML schemas, too, and this is clearer > about what “defined” means./* >
I am good with the wording, but EPP transports are not extensions according to RFC 3735. For clarity, that needs to be stated. Also, RFC 3735 is an informative reference but needs to be a normative reference. > 2. In Section 2.2.2, "TLDs: "Any"|<one or more TLD text strings separated by > commas>" needs to be modified to "TLDs: "Any"|*"N/A"|*<one or more TLD text > strings separated by commas>" to include the new "N/A" value. > > */[SAH] Yes, good catch. Thanks./* I agree. This is a good change. > > 3. In Section 2.2.3, it's recommended to change "Records in this registry > may only be removed or deactivated with IESG Approval (see [RFC8126])." to be > "*IETF specification* records in this registry may only be removed or > deactivated with IESG Approval (see [RFC8126]).". This would only require > inclusion of the IESG for IETF specifications and not non-IETF / proprietary > specifications. > > */[SAH] Maybe, but this change doesn’t explain how to deal with non-IETF > specification records. Another sentence is needed. Perhaps something like > this: “Non-IETF specification records in this registry may only be removed or > deactivated with the approval of the original registrant.”./* > > */Does anyone have any concerns with any of these changes?/* This is backwards. The IESG should not be removing registrations created via IETF consensus. However, the IESG should have the power to remove bad registrations, such as those wrongly using URIs not under the control of the registrant, or references that rot and become malware distribution points, or even court-orders requiring removal. Also, it could be argued that any registration that is a link to an IETF Internet Draft or are derived from an IETF Internet Drafts or improperly use an IETF namespace are IETF specifications. So "non-IETF" is ambiguous. I suggest the following: "Registrations not created through IETF consensus may be removed or deactivated with the approval of the IESG, in consultation with or at the request of the Designated Experts." -andy, as an individual _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
