REGEXT IETF 126

Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT)
IETF 126 Vienna, AT / Online

Co-chairs: Jim Galvin, Jorge Cano, Antoin Verschuren
Mailing list: regext@ietf.org

Tuesday, 21 July 2026, 09:00-10:30 Grand Park Hall 2, 7:00-8:30 UTC
Online
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf126/?session=35562

  1. Welcome and Introductions (3 minutes)
    Chair slides:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/126/materials/slides-126-regext-chair-slides-00

i. NOTE WELL
ii. Notes scribe: Rick Wilhelm, ...
iii.Call for Shepherds

  1. Published (0.33 min)

    None

  2. Submitted to IESG / RFC editor queue (2.66 min)

    i. RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL Values)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension/

    ii. Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp/

    iii.Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over QUIC
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic/

Med: (1) is with RFC editor. (ii) is pending some discussion, expected
to be resolved soon.

  1. Administrative discussions (25 min)

    i. REGEXT new Area / ADs / charter change (Chairs, 5 min)

REGEXT was part of ART area, now part of OPS area (ICYMI). Minor
reframing of Charter to better align with general pattern of OPS area
Charters.

ii. Way forward with the RDAP extensions draft status (Jim Galvin, 10
min)

Ample discussion about these three docs. About a year ago, we decided
that these docs would proceed independently, but stay in alignment
(rather than be one unified doc).

Yesterday, small meeting to discuss how to advance these docs. General
consensus, which will be written up and sent to the mailing list, has
been achieved.

The above is note-takers paraphrase... please wait for mailing list for
official statement(!)

Jim Reid: What's the likely time-line to get those three IDs out the
door?
A: This will come up later

iii.REGEXT Github experiment for Same Entity document(s) (Jorge Cano, 10
min)

Policy document to be developed on the mailing list on 'how to use
github in REGEXT'

There is a draft of a document on how to use Github

  1. Existing work without presentations (18 min)

    i. Using JSContact in RDAP JSON Responses (Mario Loffredo)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact/

  1. Existing work presentations (10 minutes)

    i. Same Entity Set Support for EPP (Jim Galvin, 10 min)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-same-entity/

    Slides:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/126/materials/slides-126-regext-same-entity-set-support-00

Domain Variant Support to Same Entity Set Support. Purpose is to
generalizee the concept of "equivalent" domain names, which is useful
when handling Latin diacritics.

Expect to need to proposed new result codes.

This work will be moved to the IETF GitHub at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-regext

Queue

Jim Reid: 1) Doesn't like github. 2) Regarding variants... is there
pressure from ICANN for completing this related to timeframes, perhaps
related to the next round.

Galvin: Pressure from ICANN no... My employer is certainly interested in
the outcome.

Antoin (as WG participant): the most challenging thing in this draft is
the provisioning. How do you tie provisioning activites like canceling
the names? Do you envision that there will be multiple docs?

Galvin: Expectation at the moment is that it will be one document.

Antoin... Show of hands about who is comfortable

Ulrich: There are a few registries that already have equivalencies...
have you talked to them.

Galvin: Yes. Note that we have focused on equivalence in the
provisioning side, not the DNS side.

"Do you feel comfortable enough to discuss generic provisionong( not
EPP/variants) process issues? (Yes/No/NoOpinion) "

Jody: Can you define "generic provisioning"?

Antoin: This has nothing to do with domain names... it has to do with
... sales people want to sell two iPhones... how to

Maarten: Not sure if it has to do with being comfortable with generic
provisioning. It's more that it feels very different than normal
provisioning of domain names.

-Galvin: Good point

Jim Reid: For engaging people outside the WG, who are we talking about?

Galvin: Would imagine that we would talk to other domain registries.

  1. New work presentations (20 minutes)

    i. Delegation Maintenance Automation Status Extension for EPP (Gavin
    Brown, 10 min)
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brown-epp-delegation-automation-extension/

    Slides:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/126/materials/slides-126-regext-delegation-maintenance-automation-status-extension-for-epp-00

Context:
Given that we have

However, (slide 3) RFC 10026 has statements that limit DS automation in
certain circumstances, particularly related to Registry Lock.

Given that, one could imagine a need to allow the Registrant (via the
Registry) to be able to decide what they want to happen.

So... how about an extension to allow this choice??

This is what is being proposed. (See slide 4.)

Two new elements to the domain mapping (RFC 5731)

Jim Gould: Thought the server could already do this...

Gavin: I think it's needed because there isn't uniformity between
Registry Lock products.

Jim Reid: Suggested about a thing being proposed in DNSOP, which uses
DNS-based triggers.

Gavin: Uses a different channel (This response could use updating)

Will be asking for WG adoption.

Question in chat: Kristian Ormen: How would this work if the domain is
transferred.

Gavin: unclear.

ii. RDAP Extension for Structured Reliability Assessment Metadata
(Alessandro Bertoldi, 10 min)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bertoldi-regext-rdap-reliability-scoring/

Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/126/materials/slides-126-regext-rdap-extension-for-structured-reliability-assessment-metadata-00

Individual draft, Experimental.
Presented by Simon Romano

Extensive discussion.

  1. AOB

None.

Meeting closed on time.