If this is an error that should have been caught at the time of publication, I am happy to mark an errata verified for it.
You can still correct any errata that are verified in a bis document. On Fri, Feb 21, 2025, 6:52 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck= 40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 7:16 AM > > To: gavin.br...@icann.org; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > > Cc: regext@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: [Ext] RFC 3915 and <rgpStatus> > > elements > > > > Gavin, > > > > I agree with your proposed items (1. correct the XSD published by IANA; > 2. file > > an errata with corrected text to allow multiple elements.). > > > > Are there any implementations out there that only support a single status > > element in the info response and update response? That could be the > case if > > the grace period statuses addPeriod, autoRenewPeriod, renewPeriod, and > > transferPeriod are not supported, since the delete statuses of > > redemptionPeriod, pendingRestore, and pendingDelete are mutually > exclusive. > > > > I consider the XSD in the RFC as authoritative for the implementations > and the > > RFC language as an error with the full suite of possible overlapping > statuses in > > the RFC. > > [SAH] If we want to go down this path and have the issue documented with a > "hold for update" erratum, I'd be willing to submit a -bis draft to provide > that update. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
