Scott, Glad to know that you are not against the use-extension-id-as-segment-for-child-segments approach, beside the prepend-extension-id-and-underscore approach from STD 95.
Re: “The “domains” collision is an issue. We can deal with it now, or during IETF last call.” AFAICT, it is not an issue. One can define new child segments under it. Jasdip From: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 at 11:48 AM To: a...@hxr.us <a...@hxr.us>, regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [regext] Re: Extension Identifiers in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 11:41 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Extension Identifiers in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search 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. Scott, This was discussed in this working group on this list by me and others. I even proposed something similar. However, absent some functional deficiency or harm, I do not favor re-opening this issue post WGLC. It may not have been the way I would have done it, but to my knowledge it works and no reviews found fault. I am also confused by your suggestion. In another thread you are arguing against child path segments, yet your proposal below uses them. [SAH] Non-compliance with Standard 95 isn’t an issue, even if it’s identified before the draft leaves the working group? Sigh… I’ve never argued against the use of child path segments. Besides, those examples are from the draft. They’re not something I made up. The “domains” collision is an issue. We can deal with it now, or during IETF last call. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
