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. 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. 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. -andy, no hats On 2/5/25 15:41, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Hi all, We, the author team, have posted a new version of this draft. This reflects 22 closed issues from the tracker, and these are noted in the draft text with an aside. All that said, I think our efforts to do carve-outs based on existing extensions creates a somewhat complex set of rules for extensions. In the end, I think these will end up causing interoperability issues. I'd rather have consistency for the sake of interoperability even at the expense of ruling out otherwise nifty little "short-cuts". So when it comes to rules around JSON names, query parameters, query paths, and object class names, I think it is better to say it will always be "extid_camelCaseName". As for the existing extensions that are now RFCs or passed WGLC, we just note that they don't follow the rules but we are exempting them but they will no longer be allowed. In doing this, I think we can simplify the document. -andy On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 3:28 PM <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote:Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF. Title: RDAP Extensions Authors: Andy Newton Jasdip Singh Tom Harrison Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt Pages: 25 Dates: 2025-02-05 Abstract: This document describes and clarifies the usage of extensions in RDAP. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
