> -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 11:54 PM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext- > rdap-object-tag-05.txt
[snip] > Like you say, the summary for me is that adding a structure into an > unstructured field after the fact is problematic. The problem is on the > table, but it may be decided it is irrelevant or too late based on current > deployments. I of course agree, I just think it is best to be clear about > it. But if noone else speaks about it, case closed. ...but this isn't really "after the fact". It's already being done in the RIRs, and since RDAP isn't yet widely deployed there's little risk of anything breaking in production services. A minor value change like this can be done easily in the context of a migration to RDAP. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
