Hi James,
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:59:05AM +, Gould, James wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:12:16AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote:
>> The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix'
>> part. I'm more concerned with the confusing way in which the various
>> documents in
> -Original Message-
> From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
> internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 9:46 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-13.txt
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the
IETF.
Title : Federated Authentication for the Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP) using OpenID Connect
Au
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Harrison
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:12 PM
> To: Gould, James
> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and
> URI Path Segments
[SAH] [snip]
> The uniqueness aspect of the regist
Tom,
The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix'
part. I'm more concerned with the confusing way in which the various
documents interact in this respect and the fact that two different
'types' of values will be registered (advisedly) from now on.
I don'
