Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

Hi all, On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 03:57:41PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > I know that entities mapped to EPP contacts cannot support multiple > emails but such contacts match only a subset of the roles defined in > RDAP so, in theory, they don't cover all the cases. We have entities with multiple

Re: [regext] Analysis of tight coupling between extension identifier and rdapConformance, versus lack of

Hi. Honed the analysis a bit more. Jasdip --- Approach A: Tight coupling between extension identifier and rdapConformance Extension identifier = [] [ ] means optional Registered in the IANA RDAP Extensions registry A new spec provided for each new version of the extension

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi James, On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 06:36:59PM +, Gould, James wrote: > On 5/19/22, 2:35 AM, "Tom Harrison" wrote: >> 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 fin

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Tom, Thank you for your detailed response to help the discussion move forward. I provide my feedback embedded with a "JG - " prefix. I'm pulling the proposal included in the mailing list message (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/GUNzKuVIFx7FHu3DuhS0Nn_zppk/) into this thread fo

[regext] Analysis of tight coupling between extension identifier and rdapConformance, versus lack of

Hi. Not sure if it is totally correct but wanted to input a strawman analysis of the two approaches -- tight coupling between extension identifier and rdapConformance, versus lack of -- to our discussion. Hope this is useful. Thanks, Jasdip --- Approach A: Tight coupling between extension ide

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

Hi James, I know that entities mapped to EPP contacts cannot support multiple emails but such contacts match only a subset of the roles defined in RDAP so, in theory, they don't cover all the cases. Definitively, I was just wondering if the document should address this topic for the sake of

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

Sorry I rewrote the sentence ending with "think it cannot be generically valid" but then ommitted to remove the question mark. Hi James, please find my comments below. Il 03/05/2022 14:43, Gould, James ha scritto: The draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04 has been posted that includes the fol

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

Mario, Thank you for the review and feedback. Can a registrant contact have more than one email value? RFC 5733 support only a single email property per contact. You stated, “such an assumption is correct because the registrant information includes only one email but think it cannot be gene

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04.txt

Hi James, please find my comments below. Il 03/05/2022 14:43, Gould, James ha scritto: The draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-04 has been posted that includes the following updates: 1. Added the Redaction by Replacement Value Method in Section 3.3 (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-i

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hi Tom, please find my comments below. Il 19/05/2022 08:35, Tom Harrison ha scritto: 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' pa