[regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant extensions #44
"Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us> Fri, 10 January 2025 16:41 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 B3766C14F6BE for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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 Qxo2TDgNyl6R for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 E27AAC14F600 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-54021daa6cbso2016213e87.0 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:41:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hxr-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1736527281; x=1737132081; 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=MEkRoYQnZOY7Lx8wTn/aX3GUB0iUkWohJlaEmz61K4A=; b=iLCaHTGQ4WztiurcMPSU8i6r/6ol4cdJnp8ke/ULh7COPe3f0TQauM2EwEPmtat9fP OOVnmWXWO+SAhlHoOlO/Jqch1H6FtXQbGx6m/XqSIOjL/5nQm2tYyHJI6OPcfH3rnhZ2 ToU7p5wHmnVNpTaDZmOvLIHqVMOudjwBxyy5yk/D5hr4K+efum1YkYBmF1XIxZjQeBB5 JGrQ1320nDDfFf4x5N0LyHYMI/c53SaeczNkpS05xPFdqAjweCxZ3hyOUSaQ90mO+6ND c1dGaYrjlmxxYlKFtVkmEiDZR5zsDYhIJPg0ypzX0TN5T8Ly4aUORJ0iXlnOBniuc7K+ GzEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736527281; x=1737132081; 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=MEkRoYQnZOY7Lx8wTn/aX3GUB0iUkWohJlaEmz61K4A=; b=fKomkT/oJ7vrPusQ7yeT2cpoYFH5HiWwhQVER13TJ19ZylPSq5c+7kJvE0fE3V3l50 1junImO7xaqXmiZS7MkucZQEsLEy0P4pXSHCf6yYHSY4QCrj1fYMJhSHBorWaL/GZv9i AMuLfQLBxOkRj8GOT5OvOBhWyS0qpQ/8do/OqrZeR+UZEu6CGbHjWaNwxKwNs9ut3NPg 5Xt9QKQG6zeEIvUp3E+fWQykgwvF0BbOcDd4Q52ui0J6fNmKaFxrbY5Kl3qXRqZdB0Kd KUDmycmCR/PxYZcjl9CkP/kvXoLOqCfOzuU+lLMr2g0pgsdHk/6KO66pqMm4P5dIySJ5 nZJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxpFNRIOpKD/oKJup84Yv1dgjLr+CmTHrx0srdMIh8tLwp0UA+T 9710aemqoMZk6lfKIgT1UUEViZ9FCHTYx8zYMbLZWtsKq3EIuE85YyCM4Bt2UZiM3d7RUaOqYhv u5ydadY3OPIcuVSjYm+WC/ahfVMkvfXTAbE/GN6JlOeYLSlTF
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctgDJQILsVpRr0fpl0LoS0N9qPIoMel6cqLtEr5YVGq9h0sdxX+etgVCPeVdNw SPLxuD7lv6YDC2k9xibxYVTlAQOdhjY6d/m4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHR/cVHgc8clzwDBevrNxZrwIYuOtHDeJ20HVHNhqPIMr8z7Ihzv7wDRhuty5QVxjxGf0BTWUO0I4ciEccUfh4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3c8a:b0:540:2022:e3c8 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-54284810aabmr3381599e87.41.1736527280733; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:41:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <PH7PR15MB60843E5A8CA0185C65399928C9152@PH7PR15MB6084.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR15MB60843E5A8CA0185C65399928C9152@PH7PR15MB6084.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Andrew Newton (andy)" <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:41:09 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvZ7LfDMe1XJCxn7qX3_AJ2pKlVfYOU5mE54werBS9aSsNw6eloMVhszhjQ
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRdcTWUysw3TrWUHeaHygUsk9HJMX0Q2WJ1JOP8R6zUe8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: B42UHWFP2RZDXXTITJYFHWCZKCY7ANL5
X-Message-ID-Hash: B42UHWFP2RZDXXTITJYFHWCZKCY7ANL5
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: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant extensions #44
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ZxxoEF8U_JKr5zkfTjNnmWoKml4>
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>
inline... On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:46 PM Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net> wrote: > > https://github.com/anewton1998/draft-regext-rdap-extensions/issues/44 > > > > >> Section 5, paragraph 9 > > >> Client authors should be aware that responses that make use of these extensions may require special handling on the part of the client. Also, while these extensions will be retained in the registry, future extensions that are similarly non-compliant will not be registered. > > > > > How about registering missing identifiers fred_version_0, artRecord_level_0, platformNS_level_0 and regType_level_0? It could be done with this draft as IANA action. The registry seems to be fully additive, so no risk of this getting out of sync. > > > > [JS] That’s an interesting point but shouldn’t the original registrants of these extensions take care of it? This draft is simply highlighting this status quo. > > > > > Or can RFC mandate IANA to take this action with the original requesters off band? > > > > [JS] Not sure but we could discuss this further. > > > > [TH] I don't think we should do this. Registering the additional values doesn't help to improve conformance with the existing RFCs, since the identifiers still aren't used as prefixes in members etc., and it would require additional documentation as to its exceptional nature Agree with Tom. This is not a good idea. > > > > >> To avoid any confusion with the operation of the existing entries, an extension registration that attempts to use one of the RDAP conformance values given in this section as an extension identifier (and so as an RDAP conformance value also) will be rejected. > > > > > This one looks like not normative, for sure not for IANA. This exclusion list should be then included in the IANA considerations which in fact would have the same effect as registering these names as mentioned above. I think putting these in the IANA considerations section is a good idea, but I disagree that it is the same as registering them as a registration must point to a stable reference of the extension. -andy
- [regext] Extensions: Current non-compliant extens… Jasdip Singh
- [regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant ex… kowalik
- [regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant ex… Andrew Newton (andy)
- [regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant ex… Andrew Newton (andy)
- [regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant ex… kowalik
- [regext] Re: Extensions: Current non-compliant ex… Andrew Newton (andy)