[regext] questions asked during TechOps/Regext discussion in April 22

Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info> Fri, 24 April 2020 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
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 82DAF3A0B14 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wkmnZ0F_f3y for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72AA63A0B2A for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1jS5Ak-0007Iq-5U for regext@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 20:43:42 +0000
Received: from mail-oo1-f70.google.com ([]:44060) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1jS5Ak-0008KC-5L for regext@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 20:43:42 +0000
Received: by mail-oo1-f70.google.com with SMTP id s185so8874680oos.11 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hVp7KmuOVO7aOrC0zBLlSZHQehi80x58Gl4DQMEP5qg=; b=jgG5aIeiJGC7ThEaAEvR7JG1LL0R67nUaLA14WKntH4apc9/hz4DOew6aKgm8S7ysh 8lhY7RxsOiX1am2Oy+ztgjTpEdUbVRrGxs+uq6htevJkV7HIwQ1paY12h96HhECIG2Rj hsf/m9nB9l1T13yik+VlgqfpB1VdXqdBpKa7fuJMpvV02l/3Qitc8VoiWEXOO/MyvNG6 ly7J21q+N1yvKSe7XOBgxIuKCAr5djzYI25Cg+/b0CwoUmkiQgJdmmh2b9Shg/cW2QKc CeE/A48VN1HWlVN16Aln8PFDeu+1ONhKg2DYxTrAle7enizyriEQAQrK4thmsXVtCijY 2lvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYkGrc/ruhTWblIfhqH0m3xyFJa0ztPRovFXF75XZDE7PBepx3H /Rn3d+gkyVh4/99bzBulpF+53J18dDiSEIjlrbbm+ei7sFDebn4CR3bqKWvny1kvqdO+Np5AnT5 I7ODoEQ18loFwvNrr78pAo2jOeg==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5790:: with SMTP id l138mr8725705oib.154.1587761017041; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJPgQcFWCRy/GdUTYlseItRLEVQBVEf/LDms3VZi+F+uKQtpU4p7F14QhyFt8CL1wAekvDSE6dg6rZcY+HL6ec=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5790:: with SMTP id l138mr8725688oib.154.1587761016722; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:43:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF1dMVGOJ_MH18ayeFcrgXnuOfn94WaJH9XHNo6O0LK3FpRViw@mail.gmail.com>
To: regext <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000063f00605a40f6b6b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ugB_ewcrDc3BJkUX-eGYeq2Obuc>
Subject: [regext] questions asked during TechOps/Regext discussion in April 22
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 20:43:52 -0000


During the TechOps/Regext discussion in April 22, we received great
feedbacks and questions from the audience and thanks for all the input
for draft-yee-regext-simple-registration-reporting-01.txt

Below are captures of some of the questions that we received, and we would
love to discuss them more in the working group and address them in follow
up revisions.

1. How to extend an existing report and define new one
We would love to get more discussion and feedback regarding this topic.
Right now the draft says report consumers may ignore unrecognized fields.

2. Intending to update the draft to kind of match the language within the
EPP extension registry RFC
Yes, wil do.

3. IANA section is TBD
If we get consensus that this path is good, we will work more on it.

 Please let me know if you have any suggestions and questions.  Thanks.