[regext] Re: Comments Regarding draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04

["Andrew Newton (andy)" <[e-mail]>]

On 10/9/24 12:02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting we acknowledge this was done in the past, but bar 
> it from the future? What harm do you think is being done here?
>
> */[SAH] If we allow every extension to create it’s own rules about how 
> that extension is identified, we’re adding unnecessary complication to 
> the protocol. I’d very much prefer that we define one way to identify 
> an extension, and yes, bar anything else./*
>
> Are you also suggesting this draft foreclose on any other types of 
> extension? That is, if it isn't in this document or STD 95, it isn't 
> legal?
>
> */[SAH] Isn’t that what standards compliance is all about? Why create 
> standards if implementers are free to ignore them?/*
>
> */Scott/*
>

I think they are about interoperability, not prohibition.

So you are saying that if somebody comes up with an RDAP extension, 
perhaps one from the HTTP API wg such 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers/, 
that they should be forbidden from registering it?

-andy