Andy, Very clearly RFC 7451 references both RFC 5730 and RFC 3735 (guidelines), which means that transport extensions should be registered in the EPP extension registry. By adding the transport extensions to the EPP extension registry, they meet the letter of the REGEXT charter, so there is no need to re-charter. Since this is the first instance of adding a new EPP transport, we can add the missing EPP extension registry registrations to address the gap.
Does that make sense? -- 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 2/18/25, 2:01 PM, "Andrew Newton (andy)" <a...@hxr.us <mailto:a...@hxr.us>> 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. On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:58 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com <mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: > > > [SAH] I don't see anything in RFC 7451 that would preclude registration of a > new transport mapping in the IANA EPP extension registry. Jim's proposal is > worth considering. "Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the guidelines described in RFC 3735..." Very clearly 7451 is about extensions described in RFC 3735. 7451 does say IETF standards don't require DE review, but that doesn't get around the purpose for this registry or that the IETF should be misusing its own protocol registries just to avoid following the process. Why the strong pushback on a recharter? -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
