IETF Logo Mail Archive

[regext] Re: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-07 ietf last call Secdir review

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Mon, 01 June 2026 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: regext@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: regext@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DAEF89EF46; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 04:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1780312995; bh=681w9SOKH7iD0AszRLkoQ8d2uHUNMdQvZ6EZJUJ+u+o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=F2XtkBIzsD9FiefUb0H1+G9qT1igYJs9AXiqTv0Wcw2bScsD57UImYtO3WrC50L70 jnRLCpO9lTg4Zq5T17OEb3oZFAbN0GQpllcqj1NRkAVsyiCBumSJoji6wNnsIl0Xk9 H3PbkTzIwz2SDSKH8z/6LJ/AUlZiR5ypbC8c1UNM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=episteme.net
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYazRykZ941D; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 04:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C298F89EF41; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 04:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=episteme.net; s=mail; t=1780312991; bh=681w9SOKH7iD0AszRLkoQ8d2uHUNMdQvZ6EZJUJ+u+o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=hN7ZIx/jTdeihUvWb/JsebWABekujQ389pYPvG3c5DcQdLEoMzFiIxOCLQs/8AYAN cnQ9J4xq7zX155QjsWZKlpooFmgogOqWf1AJRTc9XF/UdgCnbx32gJT9pMpb++nLks zLFCCSlsU4GmQI0C6D9QseBNAMjjfROpSruD5Z+U=
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:23:05 +0200
Message-ID: <42DF1083-76E0-4842-B0FE-AA24C10B1D09@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <PAUP264MB6756754C98DBCA656F35CDE588152@PAUP264MB6756.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <177998398970.1375095.10612660864397706714@dt-datatracker-5b4c8598b5-4ztf9> <000f01dceebf$d36c5a10$7a450e30$@sahollenbeck.com> <PAUP264MB6756C298AD87D8C1B912A32788092@PAUP264MB6756.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8A603C45-78FC-4540-B2C8-ACF7D80155E1@episteme.net> <PAUP264MB6756754C98DBCA656F35CDE588152@PAUP264MB6756.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=-0.101, required 5.5, FROM_HAS_DN 0, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM 0, TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL 0, __HDRS_LCASE_KNOWN 0, MIME_GOOD -0.1, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM 0, NO_RECEIVED -0.001, RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN 0, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO 0, __BODY_URI_ONLY 0, ARC_NA 0, MISSING_XM_UA 0, TO_DN_SOME 0, MIME_TRACE 0, __THREADED 0, __NOT_SPOOFED 0
X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no
Message-ID-Hash: CB7Q7RVM3W2EMZJT5ROIJPHQWJS35GDS
X-Message-ID-Hash: CB7Q7RVM3W2EMZJT5ROIJPHQWJS35GDS
X-MailFrom: resnick@episteme.net
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: Scott Hollenbeck <sah@sahollenbeck.com>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-07 ietf last call Secdir review
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/fGOy4Bar2VmVHYvNepIIPfrOr2s>
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>

On 1 Jun 2026, at 7:42, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:

> I reiterate that interoperability is important for this specific case. 
> This is why the document includes a discussion about the implication 
> of withdrawing a registration.

By that criteria, all of our operational BCPs are for interoperability. 
That doesn't mean they're standards.

> The approach followed here is consistent with how this was handled for 
> other similar efforts

By my quick look, most are Informational.

> (e.g., RFC 9122).

Yeah, I would have whined about that too had I noticed. (And note that 
this was another case where the document said Informational before it 
went for Last Call.)

> As a side note, I don't that we would have this discussion if the 
> registry was created in RFC 4930 ;-)

On this we agree. ;-)

Declare yourself in the rough on this one; it's the right thing to do.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status