> -----Original Message----- > From: Gavin Brown <gavin.br...@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 9:15 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; a...@hxr.us; superu...@gmail.com; > orie@transmute.industries; gal...@elistx.com; i...@antoin.nl; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9083 (7985) > > 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. > > Hi Scott, > > > On 14 Jun 2024, at 13:38, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Gavin Brown <gavin.br...@icann.org> > >> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 8:32 AM > >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; a...@hxr.us; superu...@gmail.com; > >> orie@transmute.industries; gal...@elistx.com; i...@antoin.nl; > >> regext@ietf.org > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9083 > >> (7985) > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> Hi Scott, > >> > >>> On 12 Jun 2024, at 17:42, Hollenbeck, Scott > >>> <shollenb...@verisign.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm inclined to reject this report. The example cited in Figure 28 > >>> is described > >> in the text as a "common response body", not a complete RDAP > >> response. The error response body is described in the context of a > >> complete RDAP response in Figure 29, which includes an > >> rdapConformance data structure. As such, the examples in the two figures > are fine as-is. > >> > >> I'm puzzled by this. What is actually meant by "common response > >> body", and in what way does the stipulation in Section 4.1 not apply to it? > > > > [SAH] It was intended to describe a set of elements, not a complete > response, that would be commonly returned to identify an error condition. A > complete response that includes those elements, and an rdapConformance > element, is described in the very next figure. > > Thanks, this is helpful to understand the intent of the text. My impression > now is that Figure 28 isn't intended to be an example of a complete error > response, rather it is intended to illustrate the additional properties that > could > be overlaid on top of a standard RDAP response (which would include > rdapConformance, notices, etc). Is that correct?
[SAH] Yes, correct. Sorry if my previous replies didn't make that clear. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
