Hi.
+1 for this doc being on standards track.
Jasdip
From: regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:10 AM
To: "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [regext] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
Hi All,
I’m glad t
the
>> required efforts and we have evidence that
>>
>> the new will be significantly better than the old (and it seems to me we
>> have it in this case).
>>
>> But, at the same time, we are not sure that the majority of EPP or RDAP
>> operator
;
>> Marc.
>>
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> From: regext On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 3:45 AM
>>> To: Antoin Verschuren ; regext@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [EXTER
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
>>
>>> “Be liberal in what you accept” applies.
>>
>> yes.
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> From: regext On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
>>> S
lf Of*Mario Loffredo
*Sent:*Tuesday, December 7, 2021 3:45 AM
*To:*Antoin Verschuren ;regext@ietf.org
*Subject:*[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
*Caution:*This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
click links or open a
21 3:45 AM
> To: Antoin Verschuren <mailto:ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>>; regext@ietf.org
> <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
>
> Caution: This email originated from ou
Version Notification for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-04.txt
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.
Hi all,
maybe I'm missing something but is there an
Hi all,
maybe I'm missing something but is there anybody explaining me why we
can have two standards for the email address in EPP but we cannot have
two standards for the contact card in RDAP ?
I admit that the reasons supporting the two documents are different but
their matters appear very
> Le 6 déc. 2021 à 09:29, Antoin Verschuren a
> écrit :
>
> Hi all,
>
> In addition to the questions from Mario, we still need to discuss the status
> of this document as discussed during the IETF112 meeting:
>
> "the document doesn’t have designated status; it was adopted without a status
Hi all,
In addition to the questions from Mario, we still need to discuss the status of
this document as discussed during the IETF112 meeting:
"the document doesn’t have designated status; it was adopted without a status
(on purpose). We need to think about the implications. Encouraged group to
10 matches
Mail list logo
