**Session Date/Time:** 06 Nov 2025 16:30

# REGEXT

## Summary

The REGEXT working group met to review the status of existing documents, discuss three drafts presented by authors, and consider working group adoption for two of those drafts. Key discussions included the JSON representation for ARDAP TTL values, approaches for efficient ARDAP referrals, a proposal to advance JS Contact from experimental to standards track, and the adoption of an EPP extension for managing related domain names. The working group also heard findings from the TARG team on EPP extensibility and received a proposal for consolidating EPP balance extensions. Several discussions were deferred to the mailing list for further input or formal calls.

## Key Discussion Points

*   **Welcome and Logistics**:
    *   The IETF Note Well was presented.
    *   Rick Wilhelm volunteered to serve as scribe for the meeting.
    *   A call was made for volunteers to act as document shepherds, particularly for the "related group" document.
*   **Published Documents**:
    *   Three documents have recently been published as RFCs since July:
        *   "Best Practices for Deletion in EPP" (BCP)
        *   "Email Address Extension for EPP" (supporting internationalized email addresses)
        *   "RDAP for Geofeed"
*   **Documents in RFC Editor Queue/IESG**:
    *   The "RAR Search" document is currently with the IESG.
    *   The "EPP Extension Registry" document is expected to close soon and move to the IESG.
*   **Status of Existing Documents (Not on Agenda)**:
    *   **ARDAP extensions (generic guidance)**: Pavel Kowallick, the document shepherd, was confused about its status. It was clarified that the document is not in last call and requires further changes.
    *   **Versioning and Extensions Parameter**: These documents are awaiting the progression of the generic ARDAP extensions document.
    *   **RPKI Registration Data**: Awaiting author progression.
    *   **EPP over HTTPS and EPP over QUIC**: Authors (Pablo, Jim Gould) reported reaching out to relevant working groups. Feedback for EPP over QUIC has been incorporated, with a further review expected. EPP over HTTPS is awaiting material feedback from the HTTP Directorate. Authors were asked to explicitly signal readiness for last call on the mailing list.
    *   Chairs indicated they would update milestones for older documents to reflect current priorities and progress.
*   **ARDAP Extension for TTL Values (Gavin Brown)**:
    *   Gavin Brown presented on the two proposed JSON representations for TTL values: array-oriented and object-oriented.
    *   **Array-oriented**: Concise, smaller on the wire, but requires more client-side processing (iterating through arrays).
    *   **Object-oriented**: Larger payload, direct addressing by DNS record type, but may cause issues with JSON-to-object mapping frameworks due to variable keys.
    *   Gavin expressed a personal preference for the array-oriented approach due to compressed size benefits for servers handling high query volumes and consistency with other ARDAP structures.
    *   Pavel Kowallick argued that mapping framework concerns for object-oriented are not valid for generic dictionaries, and that the structure offers more flexibility for events/remarks. He expressed a preference for the object-oriented model.
    *   Andy Newton, a client implementer, noted that annotation-based mapping frameworks would struggle with the object-oriented approach, favoring the array approach as client-side filtering is simple.
    *   The sense of those present indicated no strong consensus.
*   **ARDAP Referrals (Gavin Brown)**:
    *   Gavin Brown presented three options for efficient ARDAP referrals:
        1.  **HEAD response with Link header**: Small, cacheable, allows multiple values. Requires client to parse Link header and duplicate headers on GET response.
        2.  **Query parameter (partial response)**: Client specifies minimal data. Larger response, requires IANA registry for `fieldset` parameter extensibility.
        3.  **New path segment (redirect)**: Very small on wire, uses native HTTP redirect capabilities. Limited to a single `Location` header, thus cannot represent multiple links with the same relation.
    *   Gavin and his co-author expressed a preference for the third option (path segment redirect) due to its simplicity and small wire size, questioning the real-world impact of the multiple links limitation.
    *   Werner asked about including registrar ID, noting shared URLs between registrars. Gavin clarified the extension's broad applicability beyond GTLDs.
    *   Pavel Kowallick suggested that the second option (query parameter) might be a separate work item for profiling the partial response RFC. He supported option three as "the most convenient one" for redirecting to the correct resource.
    *   Jim Gould preferred the query parameter approach, viewing it as a preference for minimal data rather than a new operation.
    *   Discussion to continue on the mailing list.
*   **JS Contact (Mario Loffredo)**:
    *   Mario Loffredo proposed advancing the JS Contact document from experimental to standards track.
    *   He argued that previous concerns leading to its experimental status have been addressed or obsoleted by other related work. He highlighted issues with J-Card (e.g., registrant type ambiguity, original design for personal exchange not registry use) and emphasized the need for a solid standard for registry contexts.
    *   James Galvin, speaking as a participant, expressed caution, citing a large installed base for J-Card and concerns about having two standards.
    *   Pavel Kowallick supported advancing it, noting that the experimental status was chosen to allow time to address J-Card problems and consider alternatives. He believes JS Contact is ready now, especially with ongoing work in other groups and for ICANN's data model.
    *   Andy Newton supported the proposal, noting that issues he previously had with the document were resolved and that his client implementations are compatible. He mentioned extensions to JS Contact proposed in the CALYX WG that would be highly applicable.
    *   The sense of those present indicated strong interest in reconsidering the status of JS Contact.
*   **EPP Related Groups (James Galvin)**:
    *   James Galvin (presenting as a participant, not chair) sought working group adoption for the EPP related groups document, co-authored with Michael Bowland.
    *   The document has been reshaped from discussing "variants" to "related groups" to broaden its scope and applicability, moving IDN-specific discussions into a registry policy.
    *   Werner strongly objected to the term "related groups," finding it incomprehensible and suggesting "substitutable" or "variations" instead.
    *   Pavel Kowallick, while liking the abstraction of "related groups" for broader use cases (IDNs, diacritics, homoglyphs), found the current draft to have an "overload of policy language" and "business rule language" that should be defined elsewhere. He suggested focusing on the wire format and client interaction.
    *   Jody Coker raised a business concern regarding the creation of multiple domains from a single EPP update command and associated costs. Jim Galvin clarified that fees are out of scope for IETF, and the document intends for only one primary domain to be created, with others "reserved" or managed under a "single entity principle."
    *   Rick Wilhelm supported the "related groups" terminology, believing it clearly signals applicability beyond IDNs and enables innovation for transactional domain management across TLDs.
    *   Pavel Kowallick reiterated that the "single entity principle" should be a policy defined elsewhere, not a strict business rule within the protocol. Jim Galvin clarified it's a technical requirement in some contexts (e.g., IDNs) and the term "same entity" was chosen for its broader applicability beyond "registrant." Werner suggested "same entity group" as a compromise.
    *   Pavel Kowallick expressed hesitation for immediate adoption, requesting "one serious iteration" to refine the document before a formal adoption call, citing concerns about an "overload of policy language" and lack of "urgency." Jim Galvin noted the urgency due to upcoming GTLD processes and diacritics work.
    *   Jody Coker volunteered to be the Document Shepherd.
    *   Despite some specific concerns, there was a sense of support for adoption with commitment to refine the document's language and scope.
*   **EPP Extensibility and Extension Analysis (Eric Vyncke / Jim Gould)**:
    *   Eric Vyncke presented findings from the TARG team (Eric Vyncke, Jim Gould, Pavel Kowallick, Martin Wulink) after analyzing 67 EPP extensions.
    *   Most extensions are for object (31%) and command/response (60%). No authorization information extensions were found.
    *   **Recommendations**:
        *   Enhance RGP extension with a single-step restore command and optional expiry attribute to RGP statuses.
        *   Transition the `.se` EPP Domain Charge extension to use the EPP Fee extension.
        *   Leverage `changePoll` extensions for `.se` EPP removal of contact/set extensions.
        *   Standardize and consolidate IDN extensions (language tag, related domains, bundling, Tango IDN).
        *   Standardize and consolidate balance extensions (low balance, balance, Fred Credit Info, finance mapping).
    *   Werner (co-author of the 3915BIS errata document) stated the consensus among his co-authors is to limit the scope of 3915BIS to schema corrections and not include changes to RGP restore functionality, suggesting that new functionality should be in a separate document. Jim Gould acknowledged this but highlighted the usefulness of features like an end date for RGP statuses.
    *   Jim Galvin noted caution about pulling too much IDN-specific content into the proposed EPP related groups document.
    *   Martin Wulink raised an issue regarding the IDN map in the IANA registry, which uses the IETF namespace but has copyright attached, causing difficulties for other registries.
*   **Balance Mapping (Jim Gould)**:
    *   Jim Gould presented a new internet draft for balance mapping, merging proprietary Verisign "low balance" and "balance" extensions.
    *   The new extension provides on-demand balance information and a poll message when a low credit threshold is hit.
    *   Attributes include currency, credit limit, balance, available credit, and threshold. The model supports both cash (prepaid) and credit registrars.
    *   He compared it to Fred Credit Info (supports TLD-based queries, no thresholds/poll message) and Finance Mapping (similar balance, concept of a "wallet," multiple thresholds).
    *   Scott Hollenbeck asked about IANA registration for the new draft and the removal of the old proprietary ones, noting a change in namespace from Verisign to IETF. This would lead to a period where both are registered.
    *   Werner provided detailed feedback on accounting terminology, emphasizing clarity on whose favor the balance is in, account currency, and tax considerations.

## Decisions and Action Items

*   **Scribe**: Rick Wilhelm volunteered and served as scribe.
*   **ARDAP extensions (generic guidance)**: The chairs will restart a working group last call, incorporating necessary changes. (Action: Chairs)
*   **ARDAP Extension for TTL values**: Gavin Brown will send a request for working group last call to the mailing list. (Action: Gavin Brown)
*   **EPP Related Groups**: Jody Coker volunteered to be the Document Shepherd. The chairs will initiate a working group adoption call on the mailing list. (Action: Chairs, Jody Coker)
*   **Balance Mapping**: Jim Gould will send a request for working group adoption to the mailing list. (Action: Jim Gould)
*   **EPP over HTTPS and EPP over QUIC**: Authors (Pablo, Jim Gould) are to explicitly state their readiness for working group last call on the mailing list when prepared. (Action: Pablo, Jim Gould)
*   **EPP Extensibility and Extension Analysis**: The Google Doc with the complete analysis and recommendations will be shared with the mailing list. (Action: TARG Team/Eric Vyncke)
*   **Old Document Milestones**: The chairs will update the milestones for older documents on the working group list to reflect current priorities. (Action: Chairs)

## Next Steps

*   **Mailing List Discussions**:
    *   Continue the discussion on the optimal JSON representation for ARDAP TTL values.
    *   Further discussion on the three approaches for ARDAP referrals.
    *   Continue the discussion on the proposal to move JS Contact from experimental to standards track.
    *   Address the concerns raised regarding the "EPP Related Groups" terminology and the balance between technical and policy language within the document.
    *   Address Martin Wulink's concerns regarding the IDN map in the IANA registry, including copyright issues and IETF namespace usage.
    *   Consider the scope of RGP enhancements, specifically whether functionality changes should be included in 3915BIS or a separate document.
    *   Address Werner's detailed feedback on accounting terminology for the Balance Mapping document.
*   **Working Group Adoption Calls**:
    *   The chairs will initiate a call for adoption for the "EPP Related Groups" document.
    *   Jim Gould will initiate a call for adoption for the "Balance Mapping" document.
*   **Author Progression**: Authors of the RPKI Registration Data, EPP over HTTPS, and EPP over QUIC drafts are encouraged to continue progression and engage the mailing list.