From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 11:47 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Comments Regarding draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04 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. On 10/8/24 11:12, Jasdip Singh wrote: [SAH] Yes, that's what I'm advocating for. I'd rather change the non-conforming Proposed Standard extensions than update an Internet Standard to validate them. Updating the Proposed Standard will be far more disruptive than updating the optional extensions. [JS] To Andy's disruption point, it is a balance between the extent of grandfathering existing extensions and clarifying for the future extensions. [SAH] If there's a way to do that without updating Standard 95, fine. Stick to clarifications. Keep in mind, though, that once you've allowed a second form of extension identification (identifiers without prefixes), you're opening up the possibility of even more extension identification schemes. Any clarifications should attempt to eliminate that possibility. Scott, Are you suggesting we acknowledge this was done in the past, but bar it from the future? What harm do you think is being done here? [SAH] If we allow every extension to create it’s own rules about how that extension is identified, we’re adding unnecessary complication to the protocol. I’d very much prefer that we define one way to identify an extension, and yes, bar anything else. Are you also suggesting this draft foreclose on any other types of extension? That is, if it isn't in this document or STD 95, it isn't legal? [SAH] Isn’t that what standards compliance is all about? Why create standards if implementers are free to ignore them? Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
