[regext] Re: Fwd: [calsify] Proposal: jscontact-profiles

I like the idea too, but... On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:58 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: > A machine-readable central IANA registry is simpler to process than if > protocols define their JSContact profiles in an ad-hoc specification. This > for example benefits implementors of general-use JSContact

[regext] Re: RDAP versioning draft feedback

Yes, sorry 😊. -- JG [cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40] James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com From: Jasdip Singh Date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 11:26 AM To: James Gould , "kowa...@de

[regext] Last Call: (Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Best Current Practice

The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG (regext) to consider the following document: - 'Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in t

[regext] Re: RDAP versioning draft feedback

James, Did you mean to address Pawel? :) Jasdip From: Gould, James Date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 11:15 AM To: kowa...@denic.de , mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it , Jasdip Singh , regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Re: RDAP versioning draft feedback Jasdip, I believe that we can agree

[regext] Re: RDAP versioning draft feedback

Jasdip, I believe that we can agree to disagree on the value of semantic versioning. There are some within the working group that do believe that there is a need for semantic versioning in support of implementing new versions of RDAP extensions while they’re not finalized and introducing new R

[regext] Re: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08

Thanks! My comments are inline with [WC]. Please let us know if the proposed changes are adequate. From: Orie Steele Date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 9:37 AM To: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08 Caution: This

[regext] Re: RDAP versioning draft feedback

Hi Mario, I would really like to see how many versions we envision to be facing in the lifecycle of an extension. We are talking here not of version of an application software, but of a specification. So not every server change would lead to deprecation process. The specifications do not rot

[regext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08

# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08 CC @OR13 * line numbers: - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08.txt&submitcheck=True * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/bl

[regext] Re: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type-02 Feedback (on rdap-x media type)

Pawel, Thank you in performing the test, which had very interesting results. I agree that adding the parameter to the existing “application/rdap+json” media type registration is the best option, since x-media with the “extensions” (or “rdapx” to match the extension identifier) parameter is not

[regext] Re: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type-02 Feedback (on rdap-x media type)

Hi, A sub-thread just on this one aspect of media type to be used in rdap-x, or generally content negotiation. On 12.11.24 21:46, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: responding to both Mario and JGould in line... On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 5:50 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: Section 3 "Using The RDAP-X M