[regext] Re: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai update

2024-06-11 Thread Orie Steele
Thanks for your comments. I think you have identified the key issue: Is an "all-ASCII" email address always a requirement even when SMTPUTF8 is supported, is there a "transition period"? See: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-17&url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-20

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

2024-06-11 Thread Gould, James
Andy, The redacted extension provides information to the client of what has been redacted and it's up to the client to determine how to display it. The implementer needs to leverage the entire specification of the RFC, where in section 4.2 ""redacted" Member", it fully defines which of the mem

[regext] Re: [Ext] confirmation of changes to draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl during WGLC

2024-06-11 Thread Gavin Brown
Thanks Andy - I have addressed these issues in draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-12 which was just published. G. > On 10 Jun 2024, at 13:52, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: > > Hi all, > > As document shepherd, the chairs have asked me to confirm on this list that > all comment received during WGLC, inc

[regext] Re: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai update

2024-06-11 Thread Hollenbeck, Scott
From: Orie Steele Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 4:44 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: regext@ietf.org; regext-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai update Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unles

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-12.txt

2024-06-11 Thread internet-drafts
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-12.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF. Title: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL) values Author: Gavin Brown Name:draft-ietf-regext-

[regext] Re: sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp

2024-06-11 Thread Hollenbeck, Scott
> -Original Message- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:12 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or ope

[regext] Re: sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp

2024-06-11 Thread Andrew Newton (andy)
On 6/11/24 10:40, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: Thanks for the feedback, Andy. More below. -Original Message- From: Andrew Newton (andy) Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 4:58 AM To: regext@ietf.org; Hollenbeck, Scott Subject: [EXTERNAL] sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp Caution: This email

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

2024-06-11 Thread Andrew Newton (andy)
On 6/11/24 07:57, kowa...@denic.de wrote: Hi, I think the issue of JSONPath not being easy/possible to interpret in case of removed paths was brought up on the mailing list and the conclusion was to key off the "redacted name" rather than base on JSONPath [1]. This is also what has been c

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

2024-06-11 Thread Jasdip Singh
Hi Pawel, “Not enough?” – that’s an excellent question. I think 5.1.1 ends up diluting the normativeness of RFC 9537 (as you earlier mentioned in that thread). It’s like an implementor saying, “I can’t use JSONPath for my most frequent (default) removal use case.” and the spec saying, “I know,

[regext] Re: sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp

2024-06-11 Thread Hollenbeck, Scott
Thanks for the feedback, Andy. More below. > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 4:58 AM > To: regext@ietf.org; Hollenbeck, Scott > Subject: [EXTERNAL] sacrificial hosts in epp-delete bcp > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organ

[regext] Request for draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http (EoH) and draft-yao-regext-epp-quic (EoQ) Review

2024-06-11 Thread Gould, James
Hi, The draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http (EoH) and draft-yao-regext-epp-quic (EoQ) drafts were introduced at the IETF-119 REGEXT meeting. Please review the drafts and provide your feedback on the mailing list or privately. Thanks, -- JG [cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40] James Go

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

2024-06-11 Thread kowalik
Hi, I think the issue of JSONPath not being easy/possible to interpret in case of removed paths was brought up on the mailing list and the conclusion was to key off the "redacted name" rather than base on JSONPath [1]. This is also what has been covered in 5.1.1 with a clear recommendation

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

2024-06-11 Thread Gould, James
We evaluated the possible set of JSON expression languages when starting the draft. JSONPointer did not have enough features to meet the need. I still believe that JSONPath is the best expression language to use, but other expression languages can come on the scene and the extension added expr

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

2024-06-11 Thread Mario Loffredo
Hi Jasdip, I'm inclined to think that the problem lies in how the JSON content is structured rather than the language used to select JSON values. There exist two standard languages to select JSON values, namely JSONPointer and JSONPath. The former is mostly inapplicable to RDAP as the values