Hi Andy, On 31.03.25 16:50, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Hi all,At IETF 122, Pawel brought up the lack of time to discuss the simplification of the extension rules as outlined in the email below. From what I can tell, the working group agrees with the simplification of rules on writing RDAP extensions, with the exception of Pawel. In fairness to him, this warrants a bit more discussion as his position, as I understand it, is not a simple "I disagree."As I understand it (and Pawel please correct me), his position is that violation of the rules should be NOT RECOMMENDED whereas our statement below implies MUST NOT.
[PK] Well, I don't like framing of my position with a lot of rhetoric. "violation of the rules" sounds so obvious that it should be forbidden, that it frames directly any disagreement into a difficult position to argument for it.
In fact "the rules" set in 2.1 of RFC9083 are no rules, but a recommendation (SHOULD) itself. So I argument actually to keep the status quo of RFC9083 as opposed to defining new rules as now the change of -05 proposes.
Also in the original E-mail you mentioned "complex set of rules" that hinder interoperability without actually any evidence which these are or would be. I went though all changes in -05 and I didn't find any point where the rules got simplified in any way.
Finally I argument that the provisions of STD 95 are absolutely sufficient to maintain interoperability. By including the changes of -05, even though the document ought to guide extension authors not the implementations, it might either misguide the implementations which would implement stricter rules and not be able to handle extension from before extension draft publication as RFC - so the interoperability would suffer in the end.
IMO, things like NOT RECOMMENDED and SHOULD/SHOULD NOT are nearly worthless unless they can be qualified. That is, unless we can describe the conditions for going against a recommendation then there is no clear need to allow doing so. And that isn't just my opinion: the IESG routinely puts DISCUSSes on docs for this.
[PK] That is correct and likely right to do so. Worth mentioning that the -05 document uses "RECOMMENDED" in 9 places and "SHOULD" in 39 so I really don't take it as a valid criteria to decide whether to change RFC9083 / STD 95 or not.
I probably lack imagination, but I do not see the reason to allow an extension author to violate the rules. But that is me. The purpose of this message is to gather other opinions.
[PK] As mentioned above, "the rules" are recommendations, so there is no violation taking place.
Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
