Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <> Mon, 27 June 2022 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA43C15CF2D for <>; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O9hKONdBvvcZ for <>; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FF4BC14F73F for <>; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; l=3388; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1656342409; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Kwv69PqhuFJZP3cdcJi7xkQismzWMBV6f/srt1VCMTE=; b=UG5EF75Z8j3Ws4+aCw1W78bwhTyP9NHrZpf8t6657Di5dS8ISD1FU3yA UZZ9s+bAYQBtawRpF1+76DZTzvNx1hL5+yyoE4i1lBd+/ESBblO17jr9g RoPgFA2EL96eqgmGud9HdXRmwGrbsJb9uCNkTxTsyEKhgR06g21JeUriA 2RRPq6g77FEsic95dc+iaM1az68VOrpUpQrDc3smRQrAUvJDZcSHd8qgH 8k89lC0Q7Z3goCcgfr3Nz5WzJIOKo8SBKFG3Wvl12OsOR7y0R91ANkngU +XocMAaES808IVppBDyU+/trrqqICXII8CP9dwhFYlgASpnwoqKMxQPKU Q==;
IronPort-Data: A9a23:L2qZtan6Wx8WXQVbMW3Ue57o5gz1J0RdPkR7XQ2eYbSJt1+Wr1Gzt xJMW2CGOv6DZmH3co8jaNy2/R5SvpTUzdJjHlM/+yFnQS4T+ZvOCOrCIxarNUt+DCFhoGFPt JxCN4aafKjYaleG+39B55C49SEUOZllwtMQMcacUsxLbVYMpBwJ1FQywYbVvqYy2YLjW13X5 ouryyHiEATNNwBcYzp8B52r9UsHUMTa4Fv0aXRnOJinFHeH/5UkJMp3yZOZdhMUcaENdgKOf Nsv+Znilo/v10x0Vo76yOaTnnoiGdY+NSDW4pZfc/b63kga/kTe2I5jXBYXQR8/ZzlkA7mdY TiC3HC9YV5BA0HCpAgSeykBDxt/LKRYw6TWDlnlofydlEH5Q0K5lp2CDGluVWEZ0sxNJzhx0 9EocGpLcBuEnfrwyb79VPN3gIIoK8yD0IE34ykmlG6CS697GtafEs0m5vcBtNs0rttOGvLaa swTZDFsRArNeRxUO1gRTpk5mY9Eg1GmLmUB9wvM+8Lb5UDRlxJe8rjHYOHVa9OUFPkLmBaXq EL/qjGR7hYycYb3JSC+2nCjgfLLkXanAJwfDryj9/FsxlaUw0QfDRQMXh26rOW3zEmkVLp3L kUO+y1oqa88+lamQt7VXhyk5nWCpFgdR7J4CeA15RGR4qvZ/wjfAXILJgOtc/QsrslvWjonx gfT2sj3H3pqsabQQ3Xb/K2S9HWsIzMTa2QFYEfoUDc43jUqm6lr5jqnczqpOPfdYgHdcd0o/ w23kQ==
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:WUkAQq59hCl0BZFS6QPXwOPXdLJyesId70hD6qkoc20xTiXqrb HLoB19726OtN9xYgBZpTnuAsi9qB/nn6KdpLNhX4tKPzOWwldATrsD0WKK+VSJcBEWtNQttp uIGJITNDSENzZHZLHBjzVQfexM/DDNytHOuQ6X9QYKcehFUdAY0ztE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,226,1650931200"; d="scan'208";a="15017116"
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:06:47 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:06:47 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: RE: Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)
Thread-Index: AQHYijKetfh+RVAxvUqG//PJ/Gn7b61jVHAg
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:06:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:06:53 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gould, James <>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 10:32 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <>;;
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP
> Extensions Approach Analysis v2)
> 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.
> Scott,
> The language of the RFCs will support any of the three approaches, where
> the key aspect that may or may not have been discussed originally in the
> working group is versioning.  The only reference to versioning is the use of
> RDAP conformance "rdap_level_0" value and there is no mention of the use
> of versioning in the RDAP elements.  The versioning gap is what is driving the
> discussion now.
> Do you have a technical issue with supporting the registration of extension
> prefix identifiers (e.g., " lunarNIC") that ensures uniqueness of the RDAP
> elements (path segments, response members, etc.) along with the use of
> that prefix identifier to provide versioning in the RDAP conformance values
> (e.g., "lunarNIC_level_0", "lunarNIC_level_1", "lunarNIC_level_N")?  A client
> can use the registered prefixes to easily identify the conformance value,
> which may include the version number.  This is what is defined in Approach B,
> which is not as flexible as Approach C, but it ensures that there is a linkage
> between the extension elements and the RDAP conformance value.
> Support for Approach B does not require any change to 9083.

[SAH] Yes, I have an issue with registering one value and using another as a prefix. Here's why:

Imagine that "lunarNIC" is registered with IANA and returned in the rdapConformance data structure. What prefix value should a client expect to see in an extended response? "lunarNIC", "lunarNIC_", "lunarNIC_level", "lunarNIC_level_", "lunarNIC_level_0", "lunarNIC_something_else_who_knows_what_v1", or some other production that is prefixed with the registered identifier? There's no clear answer in 9083, and no way to unambiguously tie the prefix to the rdapConformance value (and thus, the associated specification that defines the extension) unless they match exactly. That's the technical issue that makes it difficult to build interoperable implementations.