[regext] Re: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning Compatibility Topic 1: Query Identifiers

[Andy Newton <[e-mail]>]

On 14-04-2026 4:35 PM, Gould, James wrote:
> I don't believe we want to embed all versioning into the extension identifiers, where it is noted early that the extension identifiers don't have a versioning scheme.  

We didn't say "all" versioning, just the major as is done today by many extensions.

> This is the reason for the other form of versioning.  We have not seen draft extensions changing the extension identifier when there are breaking changes, which would be needed based on your / Pawel's proposal.

To my knowledge, we have only ever seen two update at all -- the gtld profile extensions: icann_rdap_response_profile_0 -> icann_rdap_response_profile_1 and icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_0 -> icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_1. And there are 12 registrations that put the major number in the identifier.

I guess you are talking about Internet Drafts, but I don't think that has ever been a problem. I have implemented at least 6 in both client and server and never had an issue. What issues have you run into during your implementation?

And it seems like you are talking about a mechanism that will only ever be used during spec development, not in actual production. I don't think we should a) hyper focus on spec development to the point of ignoring actual versioning issues, and b) putting things in RDAP that will never be used once an I-D becomes an RFC.

>  I would be fine if the major represented a stable update that would change the extension identifier, and the versioning extension could signal updates to the unstable version.  We can include an additional signal with the unstable version associated with a breaking change if needed.  If we have the major version reflected in the extension identifier for progression of RFCs and then have draft versions signaled by the versioning extension, that would be a good compromise.  I don't foresee RFC updates happening very frequently, but I would recommend that the new RFC should have a new extension identifier whether or not it includes a breaking change.  The x-media draft would need to support passing the additional minor versioning information, which would mean support for the extension versioning identifier in option 1.

Now you are repeating your past points, so this thread has reached the end of its usefulness.

Can the chairs please schedule an interim for this topic?

-andy, no hats