Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

James Galvin <> Tue, 16 August 2022 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEFCC14CE27 for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jf4mUqsCqcQH for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42EB6C14CF1C for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g21so4533317qka.5 for <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:to:from:from:to:cc; bh=ddCSAUt6M5fyOfMr8e2uy2j8FvTLoDaUqtocNVNb+/U=; b=tSJfzPap0sm4M6m1MlSYOtLfogEOkK+B/Z5maG1nRuId1xpgQCmn6TGNf5M2WPfXHc stL0mwQzAAuo/BBwcsKfEPfCig5HnOfet7yJ3z7eItGUmkT/IAGioDC6tlU0UebqdO55 CbYt/AbUqClaZglEAaAUKGZqLCjA9WutlDE1m5xowZLD0cmPLlGewqm6crZCW1iLKK+9 tGuqAY0OkbhiN1N1XePuMs0FZhxYMycNqhKlYXos3+UtOvGlkZPQXn4qCCxumvU6njbz LBy8yJC34lWqlFulB0lnc8N8cq7b0vehBbsMy/SuUrmC+TH9iQBx77hBTPJLhZ0pKI3r GObA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=ddCSAUt6M5fyOfMr8e2uy2j8FvTLoDaUqtocNVNb+/U=; b=Fvb5mzPydBn9uEIlDR6RRnqr5Dq7lr+7AqP1BsvPnb4e6jU4vz7kF8St/zp5BYzw99 jESqLw2tSop1lT9SDDDTDKfa7fjyopf7Id4sxeecrv0wqYap927MEhJe0N7Xd37TnhYz Fw80vNUs5lny1KeIK2WHTi0KsW+asbo4S6SlrNhkpa5G6Wet6UtHLpzGqImCdeQ5VGvb 5QyU62f2ccABqysAe654Rh9WYuvzpA7JsFOZIokElbmgIH7ldTLaRCa9XW2jTQsYa27h xSeg/b7bfSzr1K5zCoF0cm77ZPizYNAd5VsOIbVyicFYRRqhfvKCWRUYNt8+bRErYy0i 8BFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0ljr3K5ws/++Kn/Ctf/uug3lpCQGP5Esxoxqe4PWGYnoMHKAIC Sk/r5GPvukSqUn+0Ja+Y1k2ZdraP7b5N1IKO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5hZkdeLZuvaYkUGGYbVZbArhO8qTJBBV7cKVVuZ71EbX4ns1YBlUVDMEOz4iBacP1yybDbbA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:170d:b0:6bb:3f82:6a7d with SMTP id az13-20020a05620a170d00b006bb3f826a7dmr5493322qkb.166.1660660244028; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([2601:154:c200:3460:28cc:f2d0:c827:7ff6]) by with ESMTPSA id o3-20020ac85a43000000b00342f8d4d0basm11039723qta.43.2022. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Galvin <>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:30:52 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5853)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 14:30:51 -0000

This CONSENSUS CALL is now closed.  Thank you to everyone who participated.

There have been 9 expressions of support and no objections so the proposal is accepted.

There are now two next steps, which the Chairs believe can happen in parallel.

1. Scott Hollenbeck had volunteered during the IETF114 REGEXT meeting to progress errata to STD95 to improve the clarity of this issue in the standard.  The Chairs are presuming Scott is still willing to do this.  As those errata will be reviewed by this working group the Chairs will not be prescriptive as to what he should propose believing Scott is well-versed in the issue and will make an appropriate proposal for review by all of us.

2. There are several RDAP related specifications on the docket in this working group that have been waiting, at least in part, for a resolution on this issue.  The Chairs are asking the editors of those documents to make any changes they need to make as a result of this consensus and continue moving their documents forward from there, including making a request for working group last call if that is appropriate.

Thanks again to everyone!

Antoin and Jim

On 15 Aug 2022, at 8:59, James Galvin wrote:

> Many thanks to all those who have responded in favor of this proposal.  We have not seen any objections at this time.
> We have support from 9 people: Jim Gould, Marc Blanchet, Jasdip Singh, Scott Hollenbeck, Andrew Newton, Mario Loffredo, Tom Harrison, Rick Wilhelm, Pawel Kowalik.
> Comments are still welcome.  The CONSENSUS CALL will close later today.
> Antoin and Jim
> On 1 Aug 2022, at 9:49, James Galvin 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:
>> Thanks,
>> Antoin and Jim