Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
RFC 7451

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    eppext mailing list <eppext@ietf.org>,
    eppext chair <eppext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol'
  (draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) includes features to add
functionality by extending the protocol.  It does not, however,
describe how those extensions are managed.  This document describes a
procedure for the registration and management of extensions to EPP and
it specifies a format for an IANA registry to record those extensions.

Working Group Summary

One issue that was discussed at length by the working group is whether
or not "Specification Required" was a sufficient IANA policy for this
registry.  Of concern was the question of whether or not extensions to
EPP should be reviewed for the purpose of harmonizing extensions that
may be similar.  After considerable debate it was the consensus of the
working group that there was unlikely to be sufficient motivation in
the industry to harmonize extensions as compared to publishing a
specification describing the extension.

The WG put forward this document as Standards Track. However, there is
no strong feeling in the WG that this is required, so it is left to the
discretion of the IESG to decide whether Informational is more

Document Quality

The Document Shepherd did a thorough editorial and technical review of
the document, and resolved any issues brought up during WGLC. A
subsequent AD Review resulted in additional clarifications.

The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth 
or breath of the reviews.


Jim Galvin (co-chair of the working group) is the Document Shepherd.
Pete Resnick is the responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

A simple change to address Brian's comment:

   A reference to the specification of this extension
   A publicly available reference to the specification of this