Hi folks,
this new version addresses the feedback provided by Jasdip except for
the following two points left for WG discussion:
1) In the sentence "To aid interoperability, RDAP providers are
RECOMMENDED to use as map keys the following string values and labels
defined in [RFC5733].", should "are RECOMMNEDED to" be replaced with
"MUST"?
2) Does the portion of the spec for jCard to JSContact transition
signaling add significant implementation overhead for RDAP servers and
clients? Could an out-of-band (OOB) method have been employed?
Three more implementations were included.
Best,
Mario
-------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Oggetto: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
Data: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 23:53:34 -0800
Mittente: internet-dra...@ietf.org
A: Gavin Brown <gavin.br...@centralnic.com>, Mario Loffredo
<mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mario Loffredo and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact
Revision: 04
Title: Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON
Responses
Document date: 2021-11-26
Group: regext
Pages: 22
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact/
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04
Abstract:
This document describes an RDAP extension which represents entity
contact information in JSON responses using JSContact.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
