Dear james,
I don't know if a further clarification is needed about the change of
the address property.
For me it is clear that, since cc and city are mandatory, the only way
to change an address is to define a new address reporting all the
relevant information (mandatory or not).
In this case
Thomas,
Thanks for the response. My feedback is embedded below. I’ve updated the
proposal based on your feedback:
1. The sub-elements do have replace semantics
a.Existing sub-element data deleted first and then set with updated
data.
b.This includes the
Hello James,
On 31/03/2017 16:00, Gould, James wrote:
> As an action item from the REGEXT WG meeting yesterday, I’m including my
> proposal for handling the EPP RFC 5733 element on an
> update:
>
> 1. The sub-elements do have */replace/* semantics
>
> a. Existing sub-element data
As an action item from the REGEXT WG meeting yesterday, I’m including my
proposal for handling the EPP RFC 5733 element on an
update:
1. The sub-elements do have replace semantics
a. Existing sub-element data deleted first and then set with updated data.
b. This includes the
On 22 March 2017 at 13:58, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 3) missing normative reference to IANA, "RDAP JSON Values" ?
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7483#section-10.2.2
> mentions
> ---8<---
> ... have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values"
>registry:
> ---8<---
>
> But ther
Hello,
On 30/03/2017 19:22, Gould, James wrote:
> I wouldn’t recommend leaving it up to registry policy on
> this one, since the client would not know what to expect.
Agreed, it should be left to server policy/configuration whether or not
higher than expected values are accepted. Alexander's po
