Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

James Galvin <> Mon, 15 August 2022 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35791C1524AC for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 F6cAAfNkN4fZ for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (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 220ACC14F73D for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g21so1731656qka.5 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:to:from:from:to:cc; bh=yBbAd+pEUHHTTxzbZXOuanU6nZrXKy5zPV/z2x1HIe8=; b=k0XzoYjUlxoDfm1yN/tYYMbkNpn6BNVQEyFUNFpHlvJ5hZZU7X2lP2bdAcVxF1Z6t+ /aB0h4dtIbI8o4LD44Ev4BZUts051WzHys+/lhdnbSQwlTfKwCS2OsfaQGZEKlQWIv56 JTEflTl9S6qJIOxmuOv8VmJ3bpwAYjVDaeBjM9OzZTIDT8LGvkVmJsukiE0Q+g4GIG+Y v3ZpQMrnXOn9LDsP1sXw6ByhZeI/4lmOPwP0sZs29QFTK35fRR8RQF+5lcIOihwwMjPL wU2/rnzYmkC60qbRSnfbCAUe2BkycMNn7/Yocj1MVbV/+Ms+L+ja4kXT86dgXASfGKTs QPvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=yBbAd+pEUHHTTxzbZXOuanU6nZrXKy5zPV/z2x1HIe8=; b=bUAqVM0iKTjNBNUyXU8hsViQtSLOi73CCxWnZdzIMm9gkKSr0z/8QLSKMa4vAqqmeB 3bv8BcBz/yb36O3nhWur7dBCdd/3f/zclo5RrmQdFt995yb25dbAEaobRj9XHoP1wHwo 1Wz0TXmHth7vtLgwQSklXJ6KxuNyn7jj3TXc0wTxaFld+9OmYxkDSzIFBjdKLwEJqhjA 528vQbQtN+nf3ffDYCpUV+Y320bn+n7eGiGql2jrsB4Zatr56a52OQNcfyCTEpQGW6f+ 3aqd0448O9cOUoEsj2KEWeWxVxd0Xxpg7SvGP0dUOCxEhYRNXvD1QxhVCIKZHcvNZ/eM 547A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0VNjosGQLSkCmWPZHCzQmzHH2+262eFv36y4eoA1pMNmHWE2gq tatzjNF9a3svURC1lvI/kXqVTS+FyAsQ5Rg/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6Zn5cMCYMtUj9IAZ8BojSn2ANkJq/VFMziryn4J1HK1o37lGWRl7pHh9C+cm0GzltSaN4A4w==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:895:0:b0:6ba:fa6f:e50b with SMTP id 143-20020a370895000000b006bafa6fe50bmr6195010qki.419.1660568389626; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([2601:80:4205:80a0:442a:75b5:4e05:1b6a]) by with ESMTPSA id ga9-20020a05622a590900b0031f287f58b4sm8036651qtb.51.2022. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Galvin <>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:59:57 -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: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 12:59:55 -0000

Many thanks to all those who have responded in favor of this proposal.  We have not seen any objections at this time.

We have support from 9 people: Jim Gould, Marc Blanchet, Jasdip Singh, Scott Hollenbeck, Andrew Newton, Mario Loffredo, Tom Harrison, Rick Wilhelm, Pawel Kowalik.

Comments are still welcome.  The CONSENSUS CALL will close later today.

Antoin and Jim

On 1 Aug 2022, at 9:49, James Galvin wrote:

> 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:
> Thanks,
> Antoin and Jim