Hi Pawel, Beside the discussion with Tom, want to highlight one other point you made.
Thanks, Jasdip From: kowa...@denic.de <kowa...@denic.de> Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 at 3:30 AM To: regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [regext] Re: Extension Identifiers in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search <snip> Also 2.3.1 of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions does not offer clarity if path segments are added to existing path segments. >From this perspective whether the path is extended with /rirSearch1 or >/rs_rirSearch1 does not really make a difference for interoperability, if this >implicit assumption would have been clear in the draft. [JS] Agreed, this would be a good clarification to add to that draft. Created issue: https://github.com/anewton1998/draft-regext-rdap-extensions/issues/36.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
