> -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 8:14 PM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, at 13:07, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > This is worth exploring. What do people think about going back to > > HYPHEN MINUS as a separator and noting the significance of the > > character with an "objectTag-0" token in the rdapConformance array? > > The draft should probably include text requiring addition of an > > "objectTag-0" token in the rdapConformance array to note support for > > this practice no matter which separator character is used. > > Whatever character is used, I think it creates no harms and only benefits > to put something (whatever token is best) inside the rdapConformance array > to signal to clients that object IDs are returned with some specific > format, so that they are aware of it. > > And things remain compatible with current registries not using a specific > format and hence not adding this token.
Agreed, I'll add that text. Last call ends today, folks. Anything else? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
