[regext] Re: PLEASE RESPOND: INTERIM MEETING PLANNING

[Jody Kolker <[e-mail]>]

I’m interested as well.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker
319-329-9805  (mobile)

Please contact my direct supervisor Scott Courtney ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

From: Pawel Kowalik <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:40 AM
To: James Galvin <[e-mail]>; Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
Cc: Andrew Newton (andy) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [regext] Re: PLEASE RESPOND: INTERIM MEETING PLANNING


Yes, interested to participate in a virtual setup.

Kind regards,

Pawel
On 02.04.25 16:21, James Galvin wrote:

Speaking as co-Chair:

A virtual interim meeting is certainly an option and available. Meetings can also be held in person but I’m assuming you’re asking for a virtual meeting. Planning is different if it’s going to be a meeting in person.

Let’s first start with who is willing and would attend the interim meeting? Let’s make sure we have more than a few people. Would folks please respond on list if they will attend? Based on the discussion I’m presuming that Andy, Pawel, Scott, Murray, Jasdip, and Mario are at least interested.

In addition, is there anyone who would like to chair the meeting? It’s not required that one of the co-Chairs do it and it seems to me that the folks in the discussion should be able to manage the meeting themselves. In addition to managing the discussion you’d have to make sure there’s an attendance record and provide a meeting summary for the record (which really only has to contain action items). Your Chairs will make sure the meeting gets set up. Please indicate if you’re willing to lead the discussion.

Finally, note that we’ll need at least two weeks notice for the meeting. So, once we see that we have a reasonable set of people, I propose to use a Doodle to find a date and time for the meeting.

Thanks,

Jim


On 1 Apr 2025, at 15:50, Jasdip Singh wrote:
Hi all,

Since this Extensions draft would be a useful contribution for clarifying the RDAP extensibility, and that there are other drafts waiting on it for a more definitive naming guidance, would it be more productive if we held an interim meeting before the next IETF to focus on ironing out any disagreements, especially the one about bare identifiers?

Jim/Antoin/Orie, please advise on this matter.

Thanks,
Jasdip


From: Pawel Kowalik <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:11 PM
To: Andrew Newton (andy) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [regext] Re: simplifying the extensions rules
Hi Andy,

On 31.03.25 16:50, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At IETF 122, Pawel brought up the lack of time to discuss the
> simplification of the extension rules as outlined in the email below.
> From what I can tell, the working group agrees with the simplification
> of rules on writing RDAP extensions, with the exception of Pawel. In
> fairness to him, this warrants a bit more discussion as his position,
> as I understand it, is not a simple "I disagree."
>
> As I understand it (and Pawel please correct me), his position is that
> violation of the rules should be NOT RECOMMENDED whereas our statement
> below implies MUST NOT.

[PK] Well, I don't like framing of my position with a lot of rhetoric.
"violation of the rules" sounds so obvious that it should be forbidden,
that it frames directly any disagreement into a difficult position to
argument for it.

In fact "the rules" set in 2.1 of RFC9083 are no rules, but a
recommendation (SHOULD) itself. So I argument actually to keep the
status quo of RFC9083 as opposed to defining new rules as now the change
of -05 proposes.

Also in the original E-mail you mentioned "complex set of rules" that
hinder interoperability without actually any evidence which these are or
would be. I went though all changes in -05 and I didn't find any point
where the rules got simplified in any way.

Finally I argument that the provisions of STD 95 are absolutely
sufficient to maintain interoperability. By including the changes of
-05, even though the document ought to guide extension authors not the
implementations, it might either misguide the implementations which
would implement stricter rules and not be able to handle extension from
before extension draft publication as RFC - so the interoperability
would suffer in the end.

>
> IMO, things like NOT RECOMMENDED and SHOULD/SHOULD NOT are nearly
> worthless unless they can be qualified. That is, unless we can
> describe the conditions for going against a recommendation then there
> is no clear need to allow doing so. And that isn't just my opinion:
> the IESG routinely puts DISCUSSes on docs for this.

[PK] That is correct and likely right to do so. Worth mentioning that
the -05 document uses "RECOMMENDED" in 9 places and "SHOULD" in 39 so I
really don't take it as a valid criteria to decide whether to change
RFC9083 / STD 95 or not.

> I probably lack imagination, but I do not see the reason to allow an
> extension author to violate the rules. But that is me. The purpose of
> this message is to gather other opinions.

[PK] As mentioned above, "the rules" are recommendations, so there is no
violation taking place.

Kind Regards,

Pawel

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>