https://github.com/anewton1998/draft-regext-rdap-extensions/issues/57
>> Section 4.3, paragraph 2 >> If a future RFC defines a versioning scheme, an RDAP extension definition >> MUST explicitly denote its compliance with that scheme. > I think this one must be more specific. "Future RFC" is vague enough as > missing the reference point. Future to the reader is not the same as future > at the time of writing and also different to the time of publication. Also > here we need to be specific what kind of RFC. That the RFC must be RDAP > related is kind of implicit. But then, would it mean it has to be a core > protocol update level of RFC or enough to have an extension RFC? Would there > be only one? Is this point meant to make versioning obligatory for all > extensions? [JS] No. Better verbiage needed here.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
