Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

James Galvin <> Tue, 02 August 2022 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E0BC14CF05 for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 BvLW6vGwHI1W for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 07:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0868AC15C52B for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h22so10368731qta.3 for <>; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 07:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=20TlEq56zcpbgNZImK/1bTUYGI+ieuKYtR1Rs7nwLBE=; b=Q6GigHb4bg1WbT02EnNRzJwcyoSM5xKDjXHLR0WAd5bvsDOJ9z3YAQYPeRB9AnMXIm UxFu5eAMqNGyjhIBCLafFD0tELjPV9Vh5MK1Rp4D333h78KfTS4/4yv1DylxGjbcy70H KliCIys2CHcTQEbcmonXWNv/3efXv23aUQg4LAnSEUu7gTdSbbzbk3XEj8/+CXFu4uYl bPSKi+ruIZht1aJuOrWMFo5JxHSHBkZvoOg5TanUJWorLDU7f23/fCPH/1pxX0tPHkon XPR0ieCLH8Q/T8mwvvF05uu6fME/UzbywHuBJXBsUtSSsVPiuMwDKfeJGEHikGrGRBFM rODA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=20TlEq56zcpbgNZImK/1bTUYGI+ieuKYtR1Rs7nwLBE=; b=FSXIiJzrPJrlXKchRm9874pF9KxxngIh2aDy2zQYuW0BVNu4ALJrw+DXaDwzu7mZ7B ji73bYePzDKaovyvhsE8m38jfWXBiVYad60ax1w18bglqB1g0h3vazOspgnW5Y/NKu3J s4LNexbpiKrwO0DoEBhI37Cu8a5AFXrmpUtBJrc3MBy3RWxStX8vQVzI6okKE1RX1M+L Xj4WV2XMz9P0GKjAiRrH5Qsj70YV25ucxSWeRXlYRThtS7PT9pis7Rm8aejH8PW/LPsL mx1bjeQu6oREJU/tkhQdVeNN46J5iHQ3uLYU6eZrrokNiC2H0NisLSnZciO4aY89TMMc ZSqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1u/ZZrn2G/Sf7/l8JLUXIatiGeZ6CYwwYw4E4VcgHU6FR/epWn UzPYuDji9dx4L3yK979hfukMQA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5yNbch2XgQjzqlga9HdYNj1qglNY5vXnxWylBcWNfxAkFNz8QKYFM1HtuvNlHh3fXlLiZH1w==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5816:0:b0:33a:b7c5:33a with SMTP id g22-20020ac85816000000b0033ab7c5033amr1893568qtg.345.1659449534027; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([2601:154:c200:3460:1d1b:49ae:8a17:d1b1]) by with ESMTPSA id u9-20020ac858c9000000b0031ef6dd9700sm9467125qta.55.2022. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 07:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Galvin <>
To: "Gould, James" <>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 10:12:15 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5853)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
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: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 14:12:59 -0000

On 2 Aug 2022, at 8:16, Gould, James wrote:

> Jim,
> I support the chair's proposal with two comments that I communicated at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114:
> 1. Registration of versioned policy (profile) identifiers will continue to be allowed in the RDAP Extensions Registry, such as "icann_rdap_response_profile_0" and " icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_0".

As a personal observation, I characterize this as “visual versioning”.  If you add a digit(s) to the end of a name then a user looking at it might interpret it as a version.  However, the extension registry would require each individual identifier to be registered.

On the other hand, there’s nothing that prevents an extension itself from defining for itself how it wants to support versioning.  This could get tricky but it’s all doable and allowed, if you really think you need to go in this direction.

> 2. There is the need to address extension versioning in the RDAP protocol in the future.

Speaking as a co-Chair, thanks for this.


> Thanks,
> -- 
> JG
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> <>
> On 8/1/22, 9:49 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" < on behalf of> wrote:
>     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.
>     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:
>     Thanks,
>     Antoin and Jim
>     _______________________________________________
>     regext mailing list