> -----Original Message----- > From: David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 5:20 PM > Cc: a...@hxr.us; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; > regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IANA #1280008] expert review for draft-ietf-regext- > rdap-redacted (rdap-json-values) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Dear Andy and Scott (cc: regext WG), > > As the designated experts for the RDAP JSON Values registry, can you review > the proposed registration, "jsonpath", in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14 > for us? Please see: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/
[SAH] I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this since both Andy and I have reviewed this document during its development in the regext working group, but I think I've found a small issue. RFC 9083 defines a set of "type" values for use in the RDAP JSON values registry. draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted defines three additional type values, which means it's updating RFC 9083 and the set of type values allowed for use in the registry. The document needs to be clear about the fact that it's updating 9083, which it doesn't currently do. This would also mean that the registry itself will need to be update to note that this RFC-to-be is one of the references that defines the structure of the registry. Having said that, the requested addition to the registry looks fine to me. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
