> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 8:10 AM > To: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo=40iit.cnr...@dmarc.ietf.org>; > regext@ietf.org; Maarten Wullink > <maarten.wullink=40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org>; George Michaelson > <g...@algebras.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Fwd: using experimental to move items > forward > > 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. > > Responding to multiple people....
[SAH] [snip] > Because the RDAP extensions seem to be piling up and we seem to have > differing views about their implementations. I think RFC 9537 is a good > example of this... an implementation report would have been very beneficial > as we are now being told the JSONPath portions are completely optional > though the RFC doesn't read that way at all. [SAH] I agree that an implementation report would have been helpful. The JSONPath portions are marked as OPTIONAL, but experience is showing us that the text could be clearer about what that means. We could address that issue with a -bis draft once we have a better handle on all needed updates. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
