https://github.com/anewton1998/draft-regext-rdap-extensions/issues/42
>> Section 2.5, paragraph 2 >> RDAP extensions not defined by the IETF MUST use the extension identifier as >> a prefix in accordance with this document, [RFC7480], > I'm not very much convinced if this requirement is practical. [JS] Not sure if a non-IETF extension would get the same rigorous scrutiny as an IETF extension. This prepending is an insurance for preventing namespace conflicts down the line. For emulation, there is a precedence for it in, for example, the media types area with the vendor and personal trees. > 1. what about the specifications, which are work in progress and not yet > under scrutiny of IETF review and change control? > 2. what about a general purpose extension which won't get defined by IETF and > would like to approach it later? [JS] If so, it would at that time be considered from an IETF extension angle and would most likely get a new extension identifier which may or may not be used for prefixing. > 3. would it not be just enough to have a proper review on IANA level when > identifiers are being registered to assure no general terms are being > overloaded by a specific extension or no conflicts between the extensions? [JS] In our opinion, prepending for a non-IETF extension preemptively avoids any namespace conflict and should ease the review burden for the DEs. [TH] I think the intent of the requirement here is that it's for extensions registered with IANA that have not gone through the full standards-track RFC process, so the answer to the whole section is roughly "yes, this is just about review by the DEs when registering an identifier with IANA".
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
