Hi Andy, On 15.01.25 21:05, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 5:38 AM <kowa...@denic.de> wrote:Hi Andy,On 14.01.25 17:42, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:35 PM <kowa...@denic.de> wrote:[PK] as indicated above it is not about the extension specifying the referral.Understood, but how does the current text not allow this?I was guided by the interpretation that the text in 4.2 applies to referrals specified by a given extension. If the intention of the text is that it applies to any referrals, also to those specified elsewhere, then it's OK, but maybe giving it an explicit wording in the text would make it also very clear to the authors of future extensions.I think that is a good enhancement.
[PK] Thanks.
Along with "servers MUST NOT use multiple extensions in a response with processing requirements over the same referrals."
[PK] I would not be that restrictive here. What matters is that the requirements do not pose a conflict which would make it impossible to process or the processing could be confused by the client rendering the results not deterministic.
My proposal:"servers MUST NOT use multiple extensions in a response with processing requirements over the same referrals, which different clients would not be able to process in a deterministic way."
Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
