Jim, For #1, I just want to ensure that " the RDAP protocol and RDAP Extensions Registry do not directly support versioning of extensions" does not prohibit the registration of versioned profile extension identifiers, since "icann_rdap_response_profile_1" and " icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_1" will need to be registered in the future. The quick answer sounds to be no, so there is no risk of rejecting the inclusion of "versioning" or "visual versioning" in an extension identifier. Is that correct?
-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 8/2/22, 10:12 AM, "James Galvin" <gal...@elistx.com> wrote: On 2 Aug 2022, at 8:16, Gould, James wrote: > Jim, > > I support the chair's proposal with two comments that I communicated at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114: > > 1. Registration of versioned policy (profile) identifiers will continue to be allowed in the RDAP Extensions Registry, such as "icann_rdap_response_profile_0" and " icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_0". As a personal observation, I characterize this as “visual versioning”. If you add a digit(s) to the end of a name then a user looking at it might interpret it as a version. However, the extension registry would require each individual identifier to be registered. On the other hand, there’s nothing that prevents an extension itself from defining for itself how it wants to support versioning. This could get tricky but it’s all doable and allowed, if you really think you need to go in this direction. > 2. There is the need to address extension versioning in the RDAP protocol in the future. Speaking as a co-Chair, thanks for this. Jim > > Thanks, > > -- > > JG > > > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1m04PmR9XEF1-za7UCKjWju29Q0X4ZlV36kgtkNy_9nrtrfCydLnDDElSTe_CiUylnFPzqFFEwm1yFvZGO0hNmhVs9jKbX_B2vRDmmgL0R-3Ssr7uj0yWSVVHl0GOhhucR_USzgvCu_qDlsJuljoobyjz7DFRUznl0CKPN6ld79cLmPkC4aZYh0-d3QRrvUy-K2MoTcm9quvVB9ky6ogN0p5XWoRarn4I0oXOyeBhZa129i76o8YRGI1U_T1CAMPk/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> > > On 8/1/22, 9:49 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of gal...@elistx.com> wrote: > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > 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: > > SLIDES: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lkpF6JHJoUQTmTLz50xTJYofDKJHZalBpkq8fBs57Fp-iIEyMfqRcvwWrL2KpWEP4CCXvsQevy-VDMepiVjghkRpAiKAH9zQPLHZaFjdwjE0R5YAzrQ2CN3Rwm5Bv1eQ_8yV47WFLmW5FVewqKZXOg6XiuD0f7YltIW8-XIkID-gXhEswQCLu7Lz73ec2KHhMdouEhINYZ51cqY21u4-5VULvCWKtn2oBVgHB_wklnye293K-f-KKoQf0yblvFoO/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fslides-114-regext-rdap-extension-identifier-and-rdapconformance%2F > > RECORDING: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Luzc6oRZhPnmff5v2BR0oDp_RV5XLdOqGaPh5FXetRm57Kd12ozJ2AkngZwdJj4tJX2WAzctukHcbF8elQ8FEFfphJNUIcGuJSINSFd6tXiNdcho375jyDIbh73pdXN5nUPLmEXV1oiOMNPeMs_0BY-hXkZizZhNYlu5qcxWBgSDh6GFOH5KjRow7YFAwb_n1IKwKW_kwO1xrhyAmlxQj9SB_4Qj6lbQpocSVKzQRJTXEPF-cqpgW9-KDDGDMogc/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.meetecho.com%2Fietf114%2Frecordings%23REGEXT > > Thanks, > > Antoin and Jim > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1htlQDwcCta04FTDcDRpbSyA_Yn6KqmoK-BVaOTiv9Ij6SgPdRFFdBmTodbZ87uKykaQ6aLFOvrata5DYpsXO7WcyKQnDsInJA_UITGbPyAIQ77Q6jJQJuEqJqtizIvhTVUSum-hh58yMxE8y-F183olkdUA-2q3O003lpGIK72MwcoQlos9iOpiWgK7RupM1p9nWYx69Lvmifs3YUTox99u6OyGAJaTvUmsyM9j9tfEO9g15XRiCDEugaTPYmltq/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
