Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <> Mon, 01 August 2022 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67610C14CF1C for <>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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_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
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5CAN2uH4ogRv for <>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1604C14CF02 for <>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; l=4758; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1659378145; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=3wdkKheIeEZQFHy2/5hBeOR/Ck0DLkf/2zE012p3Ad0=; b=I5gLlO5m0PJjCjSgECejYJR5DbC4JayoA4S3TtUQJ9F48aH2jCdpuG5w qyziovV9la7ylRFg1HxIX3Y/x1LdfcmPi30q/Mu98NywRVOVgQFNngBO5 0O35MsryM8vbpnrhmBClceTldblQ6oPu61xUOy3lnR1Cy+FWjX/JLA6LI Nnwh7EoYKxEpBd3DrmVM42dRGg2ef1MxxSnlsz2c3gW2s2xrAg9TjBAwm J1UsRLrWFB4ErZB58BAV3LSbAHjvx+jbxlSs+0GmUVKgzQ1MImXwd4Ilx 0rNNqE3gwSPT4pKDI+I8joMpo/1iybQ7X8dQSYK8H9ig09+SHd7hNHOUu g==;
IronPort-Data: A9a23:cDKdBam+ScTjJ0RDfx5fLdHo5gzHJ0RdPkR7XQ2eYbSJt1+Wr1Gzt xIdWm/SOKrcNmPwKNF1O4i19EsD75OHz9JnTVA+/ys3ES4T+ZvOCOrCIxarNUt+DCFhoGFPt JxCN4aafKjYaleG+39B55C49SEUOZllwtMQMcacUsxLbVYMpBwJ1FQywIbVvqYy2YLjW1PV4 IuryyHiEATNNwBcYzp8B52r9UsHUMTa4Fv0aXRnOJinFHeH/5UkJMp3yZOZdhMUcaENdgKOf Nsv+Znilo/v10x0Vo76yOaTnnoiGdY+NSDW4pZfc/b63kga/kTe2I5jXBYXQR8/ZzlkA7mdY TiC3HC9YV5BA0HCpAgSe0NaA31YH5IXwrjGPV+Br8OCkXD5KHS5lp2CDGluVWEZ0sxNJzhx0 9EocGpLcBuEnfrwyb79VPN3gIIoK8yD0IE34ykmlG6CS697GtafEs0m5vcBtNs0rttOGvLaa swTZDFsRArNeRxUO1gRTpk5mY9Eg1GmLGMF+QvI/MLb5UDQ71Ev85XiLebYWeyHSed7jl+xo FzZqjGR7hYycYb3JSC+2mihieLfgQv6VZ4cUrqi+ZZCj1SX2G0VIBASVECnsb+yjUvWZj5EA 0YO/HMxq6UirBbuVcfnGRi5uzuOuVgWQdwJVfMg8wfLwa3Ri+qEOlU5ovd6QIROnKcLqfYCi jdlQ/uB6eRTjYCo
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:pZWUaqxTkIhGCl29uPzmKrPwAL1zdoMgy1knxilNoERuA6ilf8 DHppgmPGzP+VEssRYb6Ku90ci7MAvhHPFOgbX5UY3JYOCighrMEGgA1/qZ/9SDIVycygc178 4JGJSWSueAb2SS5vyU3ODMKbcdKa68npxA692y854nd3ANV0gp1XYBNjqm
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,208,1654560000"; d="scan'208";a="17659151"
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2375.28; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 14:22:16 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.028; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 14:22:16 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
To: James Galvin <>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
Thread-Index: AQHYpa2Gxnzf6av/ski4J+wbDw/xdK2aW+ZO
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 18:22:16 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 18:22:30 -0000

I support this proposal.


> On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:49 AM, James Galvin <> wrote:
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 
> 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:
> Thanks,
> Antoin and Jim
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list