Dear all, The reseller drafts were suggested to have more reviews in last IETF meeting. All of the issues raised on the mailing list have been solved and updated in the latest version. Any more review or comments on these two drafts are appreciated.
Regarding the draft-ietf-regext-reseller, we may have some choices of keep reseller information in my mind, A. an ID and a name only B. reuse contact object C. a independent reseller object, such as defined in draft-ietf-regext-reseller The RDAP may only need a name displayed in response but there are still some other information we need such as the contact or parent registrar of a reseller. So option A may not seem as a good choice. Some registries have already use contact to keep reseller information, but after discussion we found that reseller and contact are not totaly the same. The reseller is a object that could have one or more contacts and it has hierarchical structure. So option B is also not take into consideration. Finally we decided to define a reseller object to full fill the existing and possible future requirements., which is a flexible way for any changes. Thoughts? Regards, Linlin Zhou
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
