On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 8:24 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote: > [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
Doh! I did mentally recognize the extension of the registry but neglected to think about the RFC mechanics. I concur with Scott. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
