[regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> Mon, 01 August 2022 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <galvin@elistx.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AF4C13C51A for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.905
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=elistx-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FAmtWqcPBy-k for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C45CBC13C518 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id g24so8025428qtu.2 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=elistx-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tV0EVyHh3OvraHzhkD9nEOjQZqOGkdsw3Fzid5VuFbA=; b=sFsxUFSgaGYeyZJ8ou/kAmpW13E2Rzl2JykIEp+GSG4exTAZEFZimcTG4mC/NqoP6M qsdCXC+HGqPhtPYoyXUy3zy/PrhW5TbOnkGSjjwKR77woV6jEW9L8D5aHhl1l68XJhSl XWQMTEF4ntO0FTXAo8vpvIAYvv9DtZMNyDg6dD+2XTdXxdAPfp8+sMOPyTQcCmiFdEdG bzJ0iC9ioW1F9en//R/Cv3E7FDhnkM6bETGUduyJp+WbpCqQSYNsSV9utJ4R1Xs81p4m gpTcn2O3zR0KZpELCCvyZ4w+uDPxI8LJ1b4uYBoyMxfjQiX6ZVU5McRmOSkiJU2+fwRO e40w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tV0EVyHh3OvraHzhkD9nEOjQZqOGkdsw3Fzid5VuFbA=; b=OV/WLTslwbJsbSJCTgMYT4Zp6cRMQrN5bRksBYSfrmq/r4oLyT4n0hgDn1fCNNrAHa XoOZhPzzCwgY3Y7wqHbLxSVHojnPPVc6BpAgBJwvUr/TK3H7yMV5r0/eyM8GXUUFahPF ZJCmRtoQViDukAbblcxerQISXc9wRUq/7Q2zSRBHBhXMnIbfvTqpF0nEJM498r8hTvkV VfoARC7C3HsZvStIHdw3kRc/Si0D1o1XhYMqD7ZtAfy8h6VqkLTPuEv7AegwE1D7pbB6 NfMRRhdM1TqPV1lBqTxUnenUjDIOHS9LIXRhDpHeeheHJwuCwgTcbqlwPkl5s/Lih18d 9VGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8pym4YQ1ueqmkPR9onB+iUIke0gN/UIliQ9sPEF1PWzBQRet06 eqAGVxrUliDt4xAqQmfko7CQmaJqwIZzaw7z
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tC/vVmnU/n0WmpXdz7sn92s1OIoBUP3guTFQfTNfK9BiLIJpQa0S6gKJ1WteSCNWnIYpkOsg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:118e:b0:31f:36f7:a3af with SMTP id m14-20020a05622a118e00b0031f36f7a3afmr14498331qtk.398.1659361758452; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 06:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([2601:154:c200:3460:e459:22df:bc04:22a4]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z5-20020a05622a124500b0031ef67386a5sm7170424qtx.68.2022. for <regext@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Aug 2022 06:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
To: REGEXT WG <regext@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:49:19 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5853)
Message-ID: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/kXjgoKjT2D0kec3vJ1Z6g-fdVXY>
Subject: [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: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 13:49:23 -0000

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


Antoin and Jim