Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Mon, 01 August 2022 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF18C15949B for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=viagenie-ca.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qa4PD5qDx6pK for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf31.google.com (mail-qv1-xf31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B5EC15A724 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf31.google.com with SMTP id m10so8476348qvu.4 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=viagenie-ca.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=acl4PJjQzmT59bRFkCHB0McQwUBILdfpXm8bDj5Ew2o=; b=BPxbarfrXXC4OpUfHF7yBfvliCxGKH7C6+ua0WnNecy2XNEI1hQxLSPv72UX3PEvD1 SrbLVknGR6246s38fnZGs4wG0PMC59GzQBs+QIt71dxGN1SucU5m+K1kuUQ1XQdXh7m5 v230mpTEQAd/Se1E10EzbDGoJ4K4/IlFMiU7PeYstOe2AvhKhWY9sJgYQJASbDPxlZ5/ f3yISFlOoOzzmJzJO8UU+Eb0j+DcvIeUBfialvxCnL3MUo/qA+qh1eZ3qyGaoQuajyrk w1qWQkfi3SIzwMLKGtlYsN3pl6NwYoypO0mf6pDezJhzIFlqRzTqd2Duj6C0wYDeM4PO HDBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=acl4PJjQzmT59bRFkCHB0McQwUBILdfpXm8bDj5Ew2o=; b=wEI3Hvf7fWAiBBBveBH9mecLAacIjGSUeCA6b2Cm2hLfYvrck/k9kb+FWNFLzVWTBH fL/lw9UjMgOKxZW3pJa9/+PnA3GUrN1CDmG6PphUR8aTCCVwg9LJG5Zqikj4lTFYCB8B slyNiiMTUuov0EkDVPzxwH2WktNkc0VAZA1OEoca5+N7FnpwIZ08n6Lq/eG6+GAgMEgW xNDXpzEeo7kPj76Sk9oSh/RGPz2FQ4mt4h8xACxvPLzcWVJT3qKDHItmewvIwgk2XLUY 9dNtqBQ7R9Vq6k03/g2jUmF0A8l2hGj//a+U4PUyjKSuj/kf2Fj5pyuVMq832etmOBCp Pv7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1LpCvw3o/NqCuk25W1rBRy97zZMTJfsCCczIox7f/v0itOu5TH infdhMsv82F9HRqVO8LlHezh67Y0jmPOQly7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4PQ1lDwggIT9uVLneVLbKM+o3/z8B3m4WJ/fDaYdiCk1l/cosw4fX2vejlwQJzp6Duv+x0nQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:c2b:b0:476:813a:b173 with SMTP id a11-20020a0562140c2b00b00476813ab173mr5042013qvd.31.1659362401584; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (modemcable161.124-162-184.mc.videotron.ca. [184.162.124.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i18-20020a05620a249200b006b5fc79427fsm8918567qkn.77.2022.08.01.07.00.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:59:59 -0400
Cc: REGEXT WG <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A62073C9-2F71-45E4-8EC5-1102B018ED47@viagenie.ca>
References: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
To: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/0jRUJk-7VvwqjFGLzn3SfPjC-XI>
Subject: Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:00:07 -0000


> Le 1 août 2022 à 09:49, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> a écrit :
> 
> As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list regarding how to implement rdapConformance.  This was a significant topic of discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114.
> 
> Three options were proposed on the mailing list and unfortunately the Chairs do not believe there was a consensus on the mailing list as to how to proceed.  So, the Chairs developed a proposal for how to proceed and presented that at the IETF114 meeting.
> 
> Since all decision must be made on the mailing list, the purpose of this message is to state the proposal and ask for support or objections, similar to how we handle WGLC for documents.  Please indicate your support by replying to this message with a “+1” or explaining any objection you have.
> 
> This CONSENSUS CALL will close in two weeks on 15 August 2022 at close of business everywhere.
> 
> This proposal had consensus during the IETF114 meeting and is summarized as follows.
> 
> 1. Given that both RFC7480 and RFC9083 are Internet Standards, the bar for changes is quite high.
> 
> 2. There is a generally accepted consensus for how rdapConformance is to be used and it is widely deployed today.
> 
> 3. Although any one of the three options could be a reasonable choice, none of them has a broad consensus sufficient to justify changing the Standard.
> 
> 4. The proposal has two parts as follows:
> 
> A. Accept that the RDAP protocol and RDAP Extensions Registry do not directly support versioning of extensions and that both support unique extension identifiers.
> 
> B. Submit Errata to the appropriate RFC in STD95 to harmonize the example usage of the extension identifiers “lunarNIC” and “lunarNIC_level_0” to improve clarity on the uniqueness of identifiers.


Works for me.

Marc.

> 
> For additional details working group members are referred to the slides used by the Chairs during the discussion and recording of the meeting:
> 
> SLIDES: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-114-regext-rdap-extension-identifier-and-rdapconformance/
> 
> RECORDING: https://www.meetecho.com/ietf114/recordings#REGEXT
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Antoin and Jim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext