Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

I've submitted the errata reports.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:31 AM
> To: REGEXT WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding
> rdapConformance
>
> 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.
>
> This CONSENSUS CALL is now closed.  Thank you to everyone who participated.
>
> There have been 9 expressions of support and no objections so the proposal is
> accepted.
>
>
> There are now two next steps, which the Chairs believe can happen in parallel.
>
> 1. Scott Hollenbeck had volunteered during the IETF114 REGEXT meeting to
> progress errata to STD95 to improve the clarity of this issue in the standard.
> The Chairs are presuming Scott is still willing to do this.  As those errata will be
> reviewed by this working group the Chairs will not be prescriptive as to what he
> should propose believing Scott is well-versed in the issue and will make an
> appropriate proposal for review by all of us.
>
> 2. There are several RDAP related specifications on the docket in this working
> group that have been waiting, at least in part, for a resolution on this issue.
> The Chairs are asking the editors of those documents to make any changes they
> need to make as a result of this consensus and continue moving their
> documents forward from there, including making a request for working group
> last call if that is appropriate.
>
>
> Thanks again to everyone!
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
>
>
> On 15 Aug 2022, at 8:59, James Galvin wrote:
>
> > Many thanks to all those who have responded in favor of this proposal.  We
> have not seen any objections at this time.
> >
> > We have support from 9 people: Jim Gould, Marc Blanchet, Jasdip Singh,
> Scott Hollenbeck, Andrew Newton, Mario Loffredo, Tom Harrison, Rick
> Wilhelm, Pawel Kowalik.
> >
> > Comments are still welcome.  The CONSENSUS CALL will close later today.
> >
> > Antoin and Jim
> >
> >
> > On 1 Aug 2022, at 9:49, James Galvin wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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://secure-
> web.cisco.com/1CJw6q3uG8mH8q4bvf1I1npuUm1XkuJ3g2mt2rP7GusB9rn69_V
> nurodu7FbYoOMVyFWmBOMYRR7pFnSytbZ329vpsrJ_O3T_ms41IgBxG3hK5C-
> VcydhIli63eOzC8pq7c1N5ghG_lrfY8OFilDPZHBbCcC1B9jg4u_crwM5HJF2yNvLz-
> EKrFEcsmXda6OPjPhOxxobSAA1kenYp-
> GIQxmMCQX84EFK1SmJzROb42ksi6y11xbySkXzBhJq2r6f/https%3A%2F%2Fdatat
> racker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fslides-114-regext-rdap-extension-identifier-and-
> rdapconformance%2F
> >>
> >> RECORDING: https://secure-
> web.cisco.com/1mn7hItpkWpoqkf5OpXNpYNf_aU_6ukXgFVDKjy5BlwO5MJRPLw
> JtdRUvfATwIE4Ky8ZmCLLL376ehbX1UwPKJ2iBtMMeKzouvBviAo16Jo5voXgBy8yx
> 10AG4ikzfDHpPNSal-MHLVkFMQcZadOjsu7-QgDoRQXub7UEzI-
> fSMiI47vT9D9OYMXp3-wLTASoZWxTUdFy8Q99XmdQHA4o6Iv-
> QRs6whWHxXv77_wztA4v0_iUCU6B0yMzgLjET9Z6/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.meet
> echo.com%2Fietf114%2Frecordings%23REGEXT
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Antoin and Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://secure-
> web.cisco.com/1ZzwyswCeUTC3NObEiFkPhenJ3U89XJd10vtO4HN1U3SpOerBEU
> 670Sb8Ft29EexirotIazGMA551vjmSMftxztD84-DzkPO1Nud-jbupyhN-
> dD3ep0mu7gtrI76Ya-yXR8EqsB4qnU76bfXXDwv0nkaa76wppybLB9cgCzzw3c-
> Fe7vNW4hNAXNWeU4DL1ieFrJrgKGNnh8T7GJDlnsfEBxBy-GuTuHUsWKdobv-
> cfgt2ta3HNau6ze4-
> knZWP7Y/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext