Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

2.1.1. Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria

A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is described in Section 5.2 of RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Specific guidelines for the appointment of designated experts and the evaluation of EPP extensions are provided here.¶

The IESG should appoint a primary designated expert and a small number of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5) to serve as backup designated experts as described in Section 5.2 of [RFC8126]. The primary designated expert is responsible for conducting all reviews requested by IANA. The secondary designated experts are responsible for conducting reviews as a consensus-based group if the primary designated expert is unavailable. In cases where a registration decision could be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular Designated Expert, that Expert SHOULD defer to the judgment of the other Experts. The designated experts MUST use the existing regext mailing list (regext@ietf.org) or its successor for public discussion of registration requests.¶

Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the guidelines described in RFC 3735 [RFC3735] (or its future replacement, including the Security Considerations section of that document. Expert evaluation should explicitly include consideration of the privacy consequences of proposed extensions, and, at a minimum, ensure that any privacy considerations are fully documented in the relevant specification(s).¶

URIs proposed in extensions (XML namespace and schema registration requests are commonly found in EPP extensions) should be evaluated for both syntactic and semantic correctness. XML schemas, XML schema URIs, and XML namespace URIs defined in the extension specification MUST be registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688]. IETF namespaces MUST be reserved for specifications published in the IETF Stream. Non-IETF namespaces MUST be used for non-IETF specifications (which includes RFC documents published using the Independent Submission stream); the designated experts may need to work with a registrant to identify URIs that can be added to the IETF XML Registry. Extensions and any normative reference necessary to implement the extension MUST NOT be denoted with "work in-progress" or any similar description.¶

The results of the evaluation MUST be shared via email with the registrant and the regext mailing list or its successor. Issues discovered during the evaluation can be corrected by the registrant, and those corrections can be submitted to the designated experts until the designated experts explicitly decide to accept or reject the registration request. The designated experts MUST make an explicit decision and that decision MUST be shared via email with the registrant and the regext mailing list or its successor.¶

If the specification for an extension is an IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the designated expert.¶

Designated experts should be permissive in their evaluation of requests to register extensions that have been implemented and deployed by at least one registry/registrar pair. This implies that it may indeed be possible to register multiple extensions that provide the same functionality. Requests to register extensions that have not been deployed should be evaluated with a goal of reducing functional duplication. A potential registrant who submits a request to register a new, un-deployed extension that includes similar functionality to an existing, registered extension should be made aware of the existing extension. The registrant should be asked to reconsider their request given the existence of a similar extension. Should they decline to do so, perceived similarity SHOULD NOT be a sufficient reason for rejection as long as all other requirements are met.¶

2.2.1. Required Information

Name of Extension: A case-insensitive, ASCII text string that contains the name of the extension specification and does not overlap with an existing registered extension. Non-ASCII representations of the extension name can be included in the "Notes" described below.¶

Document Status: The document status of the specification document. For RFC documents, the possible set of values includes "Standards Track", "Informational", "Experimental", "Historic", and "BCP" as described in Sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. For documents that are not RFCs, this will always be "Other".¶

Reference: A permanent, publicly available reference to the specification of this extension as described in Section 2.1.1.¶

Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the entity that is responsible for managing the registry entry. If the extension is registered by an IETF stream RFC, this can simply be listed as "IETF, <iesg@ietf.org>".¶

TLDs: A text string containing the top-level domain name (or domain names), including the preceding ".", for which the extension has been specified (e.g., ".org"). If there are multiple TLDs, they are given as a list of domain names separated by commas, (e.g. ".com", ".net"). Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs MUST be specified in A-label [RFC5890] format. If the extension is not associated with a specific top-level domain, the case-insensitive text string "Any" can be used to indicate that. If the extension is not associated with domain name processing, the case-insensitive text string "N/A" (Not Applicable) can be used to indicate that.¶

IPR Disclosure: A pointer to any Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure document(s) related to this extension, or "None" may be used if there are no such disclosures. This can be an IPR disclosure filed with the IETF in accordance with BCP 79 [BCP79] if the extension is part of an IETF Contribution, or it can be other IPR disclosure documents identifying the claimed intellectual property rights and terms of use for extensions that are not part of an IETF Contribution.¶

Status: Either "Active" or "Inactive". The "Active" status is used for extensions that are currently implemented and in use. The "Inactive" status is used for extensions that are not implemented or are otherwise not being used. "Inactive" can also be used for extensions for which a reference specification becomes unavailable as described in Section 2.2.4.¶

Notes: Either "None" or other text that describes optional notes to be included with the registered extension. If the Status value is being changed, text MUST be included to describe the rationale for the status change.¶

2.2.2. Registration Form

The required information MUST be provided using the following registration form. Form field names and values MAY appear on the same line.¶

 -----BEGIN FORM-----
 Name of Extension: <text string> (quotes are optional)

 Document Status: <document status>

 Reference: <RFC number, URL, etc.>

 Registrant Name and Email Address: <name>, <address>

 TLDs: "Any"|"N/A"|<one or more TLD text strings separated by commas>

 IPR Disclosure: "None"|<URL>

 Status: "Active"|"Inactive"

 Notes: "None"|<optional text>
 -----END FORM-----

Example form with RFC specification:

 -----BEGIN FORM-----
 Name of Extension:
 "An Extension RFC for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

 Document Status:  Standards Track

 Reference:  RFC XXXX

 Registrant Name and Email Address:  IETF, <iesg@ietf.org>

 TLDs: Any

 IPR Disclosure: None

 Status: Active

 Notes: None
 -----END FORM-----

Example form with non-RFC specification:

 -----BEGIN FORM-----
 Name of Extension:
 "An Example Extension for the .example Top-Level Domain"

 Document Status: Other

 Reference:
 https://www.example.com/html/example-epp-ext.txt

 Registrant Name and Email Address: John Doe, jdoe@example.com

 TLDs: .example

 IPR Disclosure:
 https://www.example.com/ipr/example-epp-ext-ipr.html

 Status: Active

 Notes: None
 -----END FORM-----

2.2.3. Registration Processing

Registrants should send each registration form to IANA with a single record for incorporation into the registry. Send the form via email to <iana@iana.org> or complete the online form found on the IANA web site. The subject line MUST indicate whether the enclosed form represents an insertion of a new record (indicated by the word "INSERT" in the subject line), replacement of an existing record (indicated by the word "MODIFY" in the subject line), deactivation of an existing record (indicated by the word "DEACTIVATE" in the subject line), or removal of an existing record (indicated by the word "REMOVE" in the subject line).¶

IESG Approval (Section 4.10 of [RFC8126]) is REQUIRED to remove or deactivate registrations created through IETF consensus.¶

Registrations not created through IETF consensus can be removed or deactivated with the approval of the IESG, in consultation with or at the request of the Designated Experts. Registrations not created through IETF consensus can also be removed or deactivated by the original registrant, in consultation with the Designated Experts.¶

On receipt of a registration request, IANA will initiate review by the designated expert(s), who will evaluate the request using the criteria in Section 2.1.1 in consultation with the current working group mailing list focused on the development of EPP extensions if such working group exists.¶

2.2.4. Updating Registry Entries

When submitting changes to existing registry entries, include text in the "Notes" field of the registration form describing the change. Under normal circumstances, registry entries are only to be updated by the registrant. If the registrant becomes unavailable or otherwise unresponsive, a designated expert can submit a registration form to IANA to update the registrant information. Entries can change state from "Active" to "Inactive" and back again as long as state-change requests conform to the processing requirements identified in this document. In addition to entries that become "Inactive" due to a lack of implementation, entries for which a specification becomes consistently unavailable over time should be marked "Inactive" by the designated expert until the specification again becomes reliably available.¶