Hi.
It is a bit unfortunate for us as a WG that we missed the fundamental
shortcomings of the JSONPath usage for redaction, as highlighted in the draft
below. Especially, the “prePath” portion where a client would have no idea
about how to apply that expression to the response in hand. Though t
Inline:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:21 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
> Orie, would you or someone else please provide a description of the needed
> changes that you described below? The IESG evaluation record isn’t visible
> in the Datatracker, so that doesn’t help.
>
Based on the revisions and co
Orie, would you or someone else please provide a description of the needed
changes that you described below? The IESG evaluation record isn’t visible in
the Datatracker, so that doesn’t help.
From what I recall, the goal of this draft is to define an EPP extension that
adds support for SMTPUT
Hi all,
As document shepherd, the chairs have asked me to confirm on this list
that all comment received during WGLC, including the DNSDIR comments,
have been addressed and to confirm on the list that all changes from #08
to #11 are not material.
I note that the following editorial changes f
Hi Scott,
Section 6.2 of the EPP Delete BCP discusses the proposed best practices,
with section 6.2.2 referencing back to 5.1.7. However, 5.1.7 mentions
possible names such as sacrificial.invalid or a proposed new reserved
TLD such as .sacrificial. For implementation purposes, I think 6.2.2
s
