0037: Undeclared extension vocabulary

Context

RFC 9880 Section 2.3.3 makes Quality Names an extension point, and Section 3.1 gives the features quality for listing critical extension features that cannot be safely ignored. Esdieff previously let any quality outside base SDF stop the base meaning of the definition carrying it. One oma:id on a Property left its type, constraints and Sample admission undetermined. Every model converted from OMA LwM2M carries such a quality, and working-group extensions such as protocol mapping add unqualified qualities like sdfProtocolMap.

Decision

Esdieff adopts this RFC interpretation as undeclared-extensions-ignorable/1, following ADR 0002: Recorded standards baseline.

Undeclared extension vocabulary is a Quality Name outside base SDF, used in a document whose features declares no Extension feature. It leaves the base meaning of its definition intact. Base conclusions, including types, constraints, requiredness, composition and Sample admission, proceed as if it were absent. Its own meaning stays unsupported unless it is Recorded extension vocabulary under ADR 0038: Recorded extension vocabulary. Its notices stay as they are. A qualified name keeps extension.optional_unsupported, and an unqualified name keeps its quality.unfamiliar warning, so a misspelled base quality is still reported. Composition copies and merges these qualities like any other, and inspection shows them.

The rule covers qualified and unqualified names alike. Working-group extensions use unqualified names, and the RFC reserves the cannot-ignore treatment for declared features.

A base Quality Name in a position whose role does not support it is not extension vocabulary. Wider Direct item descriptions and other role questions keep their existing outcomes. A document that declares any Extension feature is still deferred as a whole under ADR 0003: Check findings and completeness, and so is any result whose composition depends on such a document.

baseline.interpretations lists the identifier whenever a reported conclusion was established for a description carrying undeclared extension vocabulary. Reports that relied on no such description omit it.

Considered Options

Keeping every unknown quality blocking was safe, but it left every OMA-derived model and every protocol-mapping model without base meaning, although the RFC already offers features for extensions that do change it. Ignoring only qualified names would guard against misspelled base qualities, but it would keep working-group extensions blocked. A misspelling already receives a warning, and a strict warning policy turns that warning into a failure.