IETF Logo Mail Archive

[regext] Re: Charter question (was Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http)

"Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us> Tue, 18 February 2025 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 19B73C1E67F9 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hxr-us.20230601.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 KveRTAnDhg_N for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77D03C18DBB4 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fc33aef343so8038831a91.1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hxr-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1739905306; x=1740510106; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=UtxmdjVKFpc4Yu8OB+vFbV/NZNvkLV/fynV1LFwJHeQ=; b=PQMJR+p0qelLCpYb+bRdlMbVLapBL5B+MtU0ER073es/h1IxZJPwxG6E9x5VVZ/Nuy AA16VXlGg+DoGNKKY+Sb6ARkEtb1XOdDTlaJE/wjpuezFQhKh8g3geIswMuDNX3ClDi5 +lyyK8n9JV3ibcMe2qg2HNdSy82LW56C9mVXKLOVnq/mJauRqtCoTrtHeEaE6bikNhxn 36aoqKrtHaZvROzo7+JNUB0l4HhFoCNytinjVMlgzdbkDYa2hfm6JxFDgTmlsyD5UuBa CG8FpgS6S9NhM2tRpCN4Xe4dVUczoInBjPFVMT2+J6Jfp/LzxUxhmBxKfnjboBBR9K62 IlSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1739905306; x=1740510106; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UtxmdjVKFpc4Yu8OB+vFbV/NZNvkLV/fynV1LFwJHeQ=; b=lXAoRyH/tLoC/fzTyubTtAjBLHBPjjiCVvZSlHxHsHmPg11k8AXxQ/c1bEuY0LaMex nu4xgbei9E2e4xdXgCuHLB2M566/i+PU1n0fBzH0mF/dz8s+iUE+z7FdTnyH7MSW72GT /GJLIIIm6qdJQmhAh02VoEGmyy3j7ZX4MbpeV6wB8iI1xlYYJjjPoaZb98q2A0GiJxgX QC30gDq3l+f9yWkAptEucxQpGruxquI2dRsSqMHIS468TiZqZq3mu5OZYqfVM51ppilY 8ZpUdAFCZikwfr9YilREaz1O8UNpd8SdOo6d1WIHETIZjAEpPgo1mxRduV1vSrMBIQaF rqzw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUKJ1lopi335qufIb57p1hfZAuiimsXXd7Vs+kPQoBIXLWgbzViPRxrEY/T7Vsx4vG5jGc3AQ0=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyarJABxI7OYxbqUJmXQF7kr1m+KtVCqATGCuzAytWL95HVVV1Q BYcNitXv8y3+wRL8Yw2jVNCqhA8wfXv/1MGO5BqDfzeParclXmRZo8/uwJroo3XN68AfDgPAnOJ jifwnkNr7kuYcJXNhtU/hGdggASZ2SvCbeUVTAQ==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsXNuk1l+293tUbHn2hQ9Y1eE228p1aT4eVb5drmGqck9agVV7BvsRAQGWRZkL UGLNlYCHzCR68D2NrHZthiL+G8hbobiEVofL2QgQqwZuFrVE2JwVUe4m2yutiyHIKhHBsVg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG64dRTfQgf6pVWYDItzx6QYqxR5jMI0kuYjpygu3F+kAr69lZUsF9IkeKw0Su2T5YEYbxiskNJ8p1JGLcTVfw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1c03:b0:2ee:45fd:34f2 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fcb59ec4cfmr811452a91.6.1739905306592; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <A4407EAD-3F1B-452C-9F5B-764C80763AC1@elistx.com> <CAAQiQRdwaibyd7cOXGqGigzoOyXPxz34xNMMbiJ6qom0bCQyjQ@mail.gmail.com> <92872b26ce2b44159f296b138b11ca9c@verisign.com> <CAAQiQRfDEp1TP0wPwY8pXy_9R2_-Horo-opTf1svJCzs+DZc5g@mail.gmail.com> <318DA0CE-A720-442C-A4F2-D394CE6E317C@verisign.com> <84ae80afd9bb4f27ba54f98d5a4948fb@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <84ae80afd9bb4f27ba54f98d5a4948fb@verisign.com>
From: "Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:01:35 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AWEUYZnRR6St41qy7pS6dgMif68aSuKrLhEAUlDdwh91spyekf2Kuly-B2gQcpo
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRdHN2f7sHMEkH1hGV3jmrCMgxmWA9RZc_sBV6uSFwtqhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 64T44QNIQ3INROHPP7R4GBMLAFWROH4Z
X-Message-ID-Hash: 64T44QNIQ3INROHPP7R4GBMLAFWROH4Z
X-MailFrom: andy@hxr.us
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-regext.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Gould, James" <jgould@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: Charter question (was Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http)
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/G0du1Y59kgZPy8qtV1XOIUmWNnY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:regext-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:regext-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:regext-leave@ietf.org>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:58 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
<shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:
>
>
> [SAH] I don't see anything in RFC 7451 that would preclude registration of a new transport mapping in the IANA EPP extension registry. Jim's proposal is worth considering.

"Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the
guidelines described in RFC 3735..." Very clearly 7451 is about
extensions described in RFC 3735. 7451 does say IETF standards don't
require DE review, but that doesn't get around the purpose for this
registry or that the IETF should be misusing its own protocol
registries just to avoid following the process.

Why the strong pushback on a recharter?

-andy

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status