Re: [regext] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: [phone]






> Op 15 mrt. 2019, om 04:27 heeft Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> While the status is between you and the IESG, in my experience it is very unusual for the IETF to define a protocol in an Informational RFC. (I presume there are some exceptions.)  The obvious move if the WG does not want to publish it as standards track is to publish as an experimental RFC.
> 
> Failing that, I hope that you have provided more justification than "this is what the WG chose" to your area director.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here about the document status and IANA registration.
The EPP extension registry has 2 types of registrations:
(see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7451/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7451/>)

1. EPP standard track registrations:
These extensions have had thorough review and have consensus that these are standard extensions.
These EPP extensions will point to the IESG in the IANA registry (RFC 7451 section 2.2.1)

2. Proprietary EPP extensions
Extensions that seek registration in the IANA EPP extensions registry, but are only supported by one or few registries.
These extensions should be documented and one way of documenting them is to write an informational RFC describing how the proprietary extension works.
These EPP extensions will have the Registrant information in the IANA registry, which is NOT the IESG!

draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration is of type 2 since the REGEXT WG could not reach consensus that this extension should become the standard way of bundling. Hence the informational status of the document and the Registrant should be in the IANA registration as mandated by RFC 7451.

- -- 
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: [phone]