- --
Antoin Verschuren
Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: +31 6 37682392
> Op 15 mrt. 2019, om 04:27 heeft Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> 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: +31 6 37682392
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
