> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 3:24 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [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 10/9/24 12:02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > > > 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/* > > > > I think they are about interoperability, not prohibition. > > So you are saying that if somebody comes up with an RDAP extension, > perhaps one from the HTTP API wg such > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers/ > that they should be forbidden from registering it?
[SAH] Expert reviewers should only approve registration requests that conform to the standards and instructions associated with the registry. We haven't done that consistently. We should. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
