Subject: Re: [eppext] Specification Required

From: James Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:55:34 +0000

It was my understanding that one of the goals of eppext is to promote
publication of _existing_ EPP extensions as a mechanism to prevent further
duplication. Several registries have ³key-value pair² extensions, however
your last sentence suggests that the public will identify duplication
within these and allow only one to be registered with IANA?

James

On 30/01/2014 12:32 am, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Reference this WG document:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eppext-reg-01
>
>It's also helpful to review Section 4.1 of RFC 5226:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1
>
>Section 3.1 of reg-01 says that 'The "Specification Required" policy
>described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226] MUST be followed' and 'Note that the
>"Specification Required" policy implies review by a Designated Expert'. I
>want to explicitly call this out for discussion because it gets to the
>crux of how extensions will eventually be reviewed prior to registration
>by IANA. Is this the right approach? We could also require discussion on
>a mailing list; is it worth suggesting that [email-masked] be used for
>that purpose even after the WG completes its work and is closed?
>
>There are other options for IANA registration policies, including Private
>Use, Experimental Use, Hierarchical Allocation, First Come First Served,
>Expert Review, RFC Required, IETF Review, Standards Action, and IESG
>Approval. I proposed "Specification Required" because I think it makes
>sense to have extensions documented in a publicly-visible specification
>*and* public review will help us prevent extension duplication.
>
>Scott
>_______________________________________________
>EppExt mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:36:34 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Mitchell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:56 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [eppext] Specification Required
> 
> publication of _existing_ EPP extensions as a mechanism to prevent
> further duplication. Several registries have ³key-value pair²
> extensions, however your last sentence suggests that the public will
> identify duplication within these and allow only one to be registered
> with IANA?

Specific recommendations are a matter for the designated expert and review process to decide, but I do not think our purpose is to create a registry that does nothing more than list existing extensions.

Scott