Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Tue, 02 August 2022 12:28 UTC
Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
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 C992EC157B39 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
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 7oVeGe50H9MI for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.58.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80770C14F72C for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCE8B8029E; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 14:27:54 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLcOmLW9N-eH; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 14:27:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.staff.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23775B8014D; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 14:27:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <59e92ca2-0740-c6cd-45d9-e5b7c2f24d9c@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 14:25:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
To: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>, REGEXT WG <regext@ietf.org>
References: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
In-Reply-To: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/aT9nLOnUF1tptgaPK-TFAgf4haA>
Subject: Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:28:01 -0000
I support this proposal and agree with James that in the near future we should address versioning in RDAP. Mario Il 01/08/2022 15:49, James Galvin ha scritto: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext -- Dr. Mario Loffredo Technological Unit “Digital Innovation” Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) National Research Council (CNR) via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy Phone: +39.0503153497 Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
- [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rda… James Galvin
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Jasdip Singh
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Andrew Newton
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Mario Loffredo
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… James Galvin
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… James Galvin
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Tom Harrison
- Re: [regext] [EXTERNAL] CONSENSUS CALL: discussio… Rick Wilhelm
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Kowalik, Pawel
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… James Galvin
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… James Galvin
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding… Mario Loffredo