Document Action: 'Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10.txt)
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 01 January 2015 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-announce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-announce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7571A1AF1; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 15:13:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YwFzUqJ2FhGm; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 15:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DD81A802F; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.0.p1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150101231300.23069.39137.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 15:13:00 -0800
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/UO7cOTBd-f7LSa1Rr0UN0qIUTpk
Cc: eppext chair <eppext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, eppext mailing list <eppext@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:13:06 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol' (draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-reg/ Technical Summary The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) includes features to add functionality by extending the protocol. It does not, however, describe how those extensions are managed. This document describes a procedure for the registration and management of extensions to EPP and it specifies a format for an IANA registry to record those extensions. Working Group Summary One issue that was discussed at length by the working group is whether or not "Specification Required" was a sufficient IANA policy for this registry. Of concern was the question of whether or not extensions to EPP should be reviewed for the purpose of harmonizing extensions that may be similar. After considerable debate it was the consensus of the working group that there was unlikely to be sufficient motivation in the industry to harmonize extensions as compared to publishing a specification describing the extension. The WG put forward this document as Standards Track. However, there is no strong feeling in the WG that this is required, so it is left to the discretion of the IESG to decide whether Informational is more appropriate. Document Quality The Document Shepherd did a thorough editorial and technical review of the document, and resolved any issues brought up during WGLC. A subsequent AD Review resulted in additional clarifications. The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breath of the reviews. Personnel Jim Galvin (co-chair of the working group) is the Document Shepherd. Pete Resnick is the responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note A simple change to address Brian's comment: OLD A reference to the specification of this extension NEW A publicly available reference to the specification of this extension