Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net> Mon, 01 August 2022 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jasdips@arin.net>
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 B60CEC13C52D for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 4_VbnSnXdDNi for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.arin.net (smtp4.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:201::54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1727BC15A724 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (cas01cha.corp.arin.net [10.1.30.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp4.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2C0710757B2; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:03:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.62) by CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:03:32 -0400
Received: from CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net ([fe80::99af:898b:219f:401]) by CAS01CHA.corp.arin.net ([fe80::99af:898b:219f:401%17]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.000; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 10:03:32 -0400
From: Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net>
To: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>, REGEXT WG <regext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
Thread-Index: AQHYpa2D0upbXt68WUCPORk48IBrS62aE5wA
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:03:32 +0000
Message-ID: <E183AE0A-4144-4D71-9CEC-6F62AA1A5F1E@arin.net>
References: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
In-Reply-To: <6F2A5598-FED5-4099-AAF2-2843435CDCDF@elistx.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.136.136.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <A650FCB77E5DB944B12B5036173C093D@corp.arin.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/mNx25VhV60j0Eje2cNUwuXxwoKs>
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: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:03:39 -0000

+1

Thanks,
Jasdip

On 8/1/22, 9:49 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of galvin@elistx.com> 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

    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    regext@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext