+1 to including support for search responses.
In addition to Scott's example about a (perhaps) ill-intentioned client.
Including support for search provides clarity for server operators.
Thanks
Rick
On 9/1/21, 12:58 PM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott"
wrote:
Caution: This emai
I support adoption.
-Rick
From: regext on behalf of Jody Kolker
Date: Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:03 PM
To: regext
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Adoption of draft-gould-regext-rdap-redacted
Document
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or op
I support.
Thanks
Rick
On 5/3/21, 9:31 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin"
wrote:
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
We are extending this LAST CALL
Support… sorry for late reply
From: regext on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott"
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 7:50 AM
To: Antoin Verschuren , "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EXTENDED 2nd WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis
Caution: This email originated from
Support… sorry for late reply
From: regext on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott"
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 7:50 AM
To: Antoin Verschuren , "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] EXTENDED 2nd WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis
Caution: This email originated from
Jody,
I confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed
for draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer.
(Full disclosure: Jim just reminded me that I hadn’t responded.)
Rick
+1
Rick
On 5/15/20, 10:26 AM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo"
wrote:
I support adoption.
Mario
Il 15/05/2020 15:54, Antoin Verschuren ha scritto:
> Dear working group,
>
> Now that we have 2 more RDAP slots available on our milestones, we had
new request
+1
Rick
On 5/15/20, 10:26 AM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo"
wrote:
I support adoption.
Mario
Il 15/05/2020 15:54, Antoin Verschuren ha scritto:
> Dear working group,
>
> Now that we have 2 more RDAP slots available on our milestones, we had
new request
+1
Rick
On 7/27/19, 11:28 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin"
wrote:
This is a reminder to please indicate your support or concerns regarding
this document.
We do need expressions of support to advance this document.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
Capturing/elaborating on my comments at the mic the WG meeting in Montreal…
Related to these three drafts:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
https://datatr
+1
On 4/26/19, 4:26 PM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin"
wrote:
As discussed at our last meeting at IETF104 Prague, we need to set
milestones for ourself.
This is a formal request for adoption of a set of milestones.
As previously explained, we have included the tw
It would be interesting to explore technical approaches to a standardized
registry locking model, although I suspect some of the approaches that are
technically possible might not prove to be broadly feasible from a
business/contractual perspective.
Regarding the possibility of registry lock su
Jim,
A suggestion for Section 7 (Security Considerations) to delete the sentence:
The Verification Service Provider (VSP) MUST store the verification
data in compliance with the applicable privacy laws and regulations.
The rationale for this is that IETF RFCs (and I-Ds) are always subordinate to
13 matches
Mail list logo
