Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

[James Galvin <[e-mail]>]

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:
>
> SLIDES: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-114-regext-rdap-extension-identifier-and-rdapconformance/
>
> RECORDING: https://www.meetecho.com/ietf114/recordings#REGEXT
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoin and Jim