Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 1 févr. 2022 à 19:51, Murray S. Kucherawy a écrit : > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:05 PM Marc Blanchet > wrote: > > 1. - > > > > FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19. > > I have a hard time thinking to replace an

Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:05 PM Marc Blanchet wrote: > > 1. - > > > > FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with > draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19. > > I have a hard time thinking to replace an RFC reference to a draft in > a document that would become an Internet Standard. Moreover, I think

[regext] Protocol Action: 'Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service' (draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-06.txt) as Internet Standard This document is the product of the Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons

Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Le 29 nov. 2021 à 16:37, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker a > écrit : > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss … > > > Section 11 > >

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis: Requiring secure transport for accessing bootstrap registries

queue. Marc. > Le 25 janv. 2022 à 18:58, Marc Blanchet a écrit : > > Hello, > As part of the reviews of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 for Internet > Standard, Benjamin Kaduk has commented as follows: > > > Section 3 > > The RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries, a

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-06.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-06.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2022-01-28 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Marc, No further comments from me here; I'll look for the separate threads indicated. Thanks, Ben ___ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 29 nov. 2021 à 10:31, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker > a écrit : > > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to

[regext] draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis: Requiring secure transport for accessing bootstrap registries

Hello, As part of the reviews of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 for Internet Standard, Benjamin Kaduk has commented as follows: Section 3 The RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries, as specified in Section 13 below, have been made available as JSON [RFC8259] objects, which can be retrieved

Re: [regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 25 janv. 2022 à 17:46, John Scudder a écrit : > > Hi Marc, > > Thanks, I just had a look at the diff. I have one further point to follow up > on. > >> On Jan 25, 2022, at 5:22 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >>> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 21:05, John Scudder via Datatracker a >>> écrit : > […trimm

Re: [regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi Marc, Thanks, I just had a look at the diff. I have one further point to follow up on. > On Jan 25, 2022, at 5:22 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 21:05, John Scudder via Datatracker a >> écrit : […trimmed…] >> 3. In §5.3 you write, >> >>

Re: [regext] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484...@ietf.org" , regext-chairs , regext , Jasdip Singh Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Le 1 déc. 2021 à 05:39, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> a écrit : Éric V

Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Le 29 nov. 2021 à 16:37, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker a > écrit : > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresse

[regext] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [regext] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 05:39, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker a > écrit : > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses i

Re: [regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 21:05, John Scudder via Datatracker a > écrit : > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresse

Re: [regext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 14:37, Erik Kline via Datatracker a écrit > : > > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses i

Re: [regext] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 29 nov. 2021 à 09:01, Lars Eggert via Datatracker a > écrit : > > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresse

Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

> Le 29 nov. 2021 à 05:22, Robert Wilton via Datatracker a > écrit : > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addr

Re: [regext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern

Re: [regext] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

> Le 30 sept. 2021 à 17:29, Russ Housley via Datatracker a > écrit : > > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned ARTART reviewer for this Internet-Draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Revi

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-05.txt

tion Data (RDAP) > Service >Author : Marc Blanchet > Filename : draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-05.txt > Pages : 20 > Date: 2022-01-25 > > Abstract: > This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data &g

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-05.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-05.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2022-01-25 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:10:02AM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:37 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > -

Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:37 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > ema

[regext] Murray Kucherawy's Yes on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

[regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[regext] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

[regext] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

[regext] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

[regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [regext] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/Ge

[regext] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

[regext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[regext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[regext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari Review result: Ready I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comm

[regext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2021-10-06 IETF LC End Date: 2021-10-27 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is ready for publication

[regext] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Ready I am the assigned ARTART reviewer for this Internet-Draft. Document: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2021-09-30 IETF LC End Date: 2021-10-27 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major Concerns: None. Minor

[regext] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04

Antoin Verschuren has requested publication of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 as Internet Standard on behalf of the REGEXT working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc74

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt

stration Protocols Extensions WG of the > IETF. > >Title : Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) > Service >Author : Marc Blanchet > Filename : draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt > Pages : 20 >

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2021-09-02 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

Re: [regext] EXTENDED Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

to RFC9082 and RFC9083, respectively. With those changes, draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04 can be submitted to the IESG for consideration as a Full Internet Standard. Jim On 3 May 2021, at 9:31, James Galvin wrote: > We are extending this LAST CALL until 10 May 2021. > > As this do

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

Hi Jim- I support both but the focus on my email was to provide a +1 support for registry-maintenance -Jothan On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:59 AM James Galvin wrote: > Jothan, > > Your message is confusing. > > The subject of the message suggests you’re supporting rfc7484bis, but the > content of

Re: [regext] EXTENDED Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

Aqfy3R_8oIRBO-aEBvNWd0DyZsYv6GOgXajavoNzYcsvz_Dg4L5JdbN8br08wuI4QbQAJDqvIf28746rfu52fovD9ay-b2JpJdJBlqCJmYULVs1s86Zc45XpIfDPSKxuTVpg5I5ETDeaZbfcBYoXMLxSS1vFepXA2B1m5nI7wa/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis%2F >> >> Please note: This specification is currently a Propose

Re: [regext] EXTENDED Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

ntial support > > from the working group in order to submit this document to the IESG. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Antoin and Jim > > > > > > > > > > On 12 Apr 2021, at 9:20, James Galvin wrote: > > > > > The following w

[regext] EXTENDED Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

this document to the IESG. Thanks, Antoin and Jim On 12 Apr 2021, at 9:20, James Galvin wrote: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as an Internet Standard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

Jothan, Your message is confusing. The subject of the message suggests you’re supporting rfc7484bis, but the content of the message is all about registry-maintenance. Would you please clarify your support? Thanks, Jim On 15 Apr 2021, at 12:50, Jothan Frakes wrote: +1draft-ietf-rege

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

Standard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ Please note: This specification is currently a Proposed Standard. It is advancing to an Internet Standard. It is important that the working group show support for this advancement. The chairs will be looking for this

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

+1draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance looks good to me Just to be clear, since this is a 2nd WGLC, the new WGLC is for > draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-12 > > Op 29 mrt. 2021, om 14:49 heeft Antoin Verschuren > <> het volgende geschreven: > > > > The foll

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

+1 Jasdip On 4/12/21, 9:20 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" wrote: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as an Internet Standard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

Minor comment: The boilerplate in Section 2 needs to be updated to something like this (note the new BCP 14 reference): The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

+1 Mario Il 12/04/2021 15:20, James Galvin ha scritto: The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as an Internet Standard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ Please note: This specification is currently

[regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03

The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as an Internet Standard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ Please note: This specification is currently a Proposed Standard. It is advancing to an Internet

Re: [regext] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

On 29 Mar 2021, at 9:36, Antoin Verschuren wrote: Marc, just to let you know: waiting for a response to Jasdip's comment to see if we need a new version before issuing a wglc. thanks for the reminder. Added the note per Jasdip request and created -03. just posted. Regards, Marc. Regards,

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-03.txt Pages : 19 Date: 2021-03-29 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

Hello Marc, One input: In section 5.3 (Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space), should we add a normative reference to RFC 5396 for AS number format? We have such normative references to IPv4 and IPv6 formats in sections 5.1 and 5.2. Jasdip On 3/19/21, 4:47 PM, "regext on behalf of Ma

[regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

Hello, new version: - added Scott Hollenbeck comments - added ARIN implementation info from Jasdip Singh Ready for wglc to me. Regards, Marc. Forwarded message: From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: Marc Blanchet Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-02.txt Pages : 19 Date: 2021-03-19 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

[regext] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-01.txt

-annou...@ietf.org Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-01.txt Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 10:39:28 -0800 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-01.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-01.txt Pages : 18 Date: 2021-03-09 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

[regext] rfc7484bis feedback

hod may not work for all types of RDAP objects. Could we omit saying “This method may not work for all types of RDAP objects” given we are here talking about domain objects only? Some authorities of registration data may work together on sharing their information for a common servic

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

with no direct interaction by the Chairs. * draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis done. no changes were made from the individual submission, so easier to track the changes in the future. Regards, Marc. 3. The chairs will then link the working group document to the prior individual document

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt

Filename: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt Pages : 17 Date: 2021-02-10 Abstract: This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested scope, such

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

. * draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis 3. The chairs will then link the working group document to the prior individual document. Thanks again to all! Jim On 18 Jan 2021, at 9:29, James Galvin wrote: This is a formal adoption request for “Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

rg/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by > REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review text, or be a > document

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

) Service”: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, r

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

> -Original Message- > From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 9:29 AM > To: REGEXT WG > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext- > rfc7484bis-00 > > Caution: This email originated from outside the or

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

Hi all, I support adoption and am willing to contribute. Mario Il 18/01/2021 15:29, James Galvin ha scritto: This is a formal adoption request for “Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service”: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/ Please review

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/ Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating your view. Please indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review text, or

[regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

This is a formal adoption request for “Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service”: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/ Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by REGEXT, and comment to the list, clearly stating

[regext] The REGEXT WG has placed draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

The REGEXT WG has placed draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Antoin Verschuren) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis/ ___ regext mailing list

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

> >> > >>> On 12 Aug 2020, at 17:18, Marc Blanchet > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> well, already added text in the published draft yesterday. > >>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis: https only?

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:26:44PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > for the rdap bootstrap registries, there has been (well since the very > beginning of the work) discussions about only supporting https URLs. I’m > happy to make it mandatory. Is there a working group agreement on this? > Please spe

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis: https only?

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020, at 11:26, Marc Blanchet wrote: > Hello, > for the rdap bootstrap registries, there has been (well since the very > beginning of the work) discussions about only supporting https URLs. > I’m happy to make it mandatory. Is there a working group agreement on > this? Please

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

n you provide some text or some proposal on that matter? Marc. -G On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 9:40 PM Gavin Brown wrote: On 12 Aug 2020, at 17:18, Marc Blanchet wrote: well, already added text in the published draft yesterday. https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-r

[regext] rfc7484bis: https only?

Hello, for the rdap bootstrap registries, there has been (well since the very beginning of the work) discussions about only supporting https URLs. I’m happy to make it mandatory. Is there a working group agreement on this? Please speak up if you don’t agree (i.e. you still want no TLS http).

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, at 21:08, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > Of the 822 https:// URLs in https://data.iana.org/rdap/dns.json , and 0 > http:// URLs, there are some for ccTLDs: > .ar > .br > .ca > .cr > ..cz > .id > .is > .no > .tz > > > So, I believe we could remove http:// as a transport option, and th

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:27, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > Hello Marc, > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, at 13:55, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: >>> >>> PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it would >>> be >>> nice to have an `SRV` record o

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

2 Aug 2020, at 17:18, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > > well, already added text in the published draft yesterday. > > > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt > > > > extract of my added text: > > « All RDAP e

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

> On 12 Aug 2020, at 17:18, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > well, already added text in the published draft yesterday. > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt > > extract of my added text: > « All RDAP endpoints referenced by the URLs

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On 11 Aug 2020, at 15:27, Patrick Mevzek wrote: Hello Marc, On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, at 13:55, Marc Blanchet wrote: On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it would be nice to have an `SRV` record on `_rdap._tcp` or somethin

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

uld be inserted below the aforementioned paragraph in Section 3: well, already added text in the published draft yesterday. https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt extract of my added text: « All RDAP endpoints referenced by the URLs in the array MUST retu

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 19:33, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 14:32, Gavin Brown wrote: >>> 1. client implementers should be advised to prefer https:// base URLs >>> over http:// base URLs. >> >> I think this is already addres

[regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt

comments. Would like to see it adopted by the wg so we can push it for Full Standard. Marc. Forwarded message: From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: Marc Blanchet Subject: New Version Notification for draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:13:28 -0700 A new version

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

Hello Marc, On Tue, Aug 11, 2020, at 13:55, Marc Blanchet wrote: > On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > > > PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it would > > be > > nice to have an `SRV` record on `_rdap._tcp` or something to point to > > relevant > > RDAP

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: PS: related but not directly, at least for domain registries, it would be nice to have an `SRV` record on `_rdap._tcp` or something to point to relevant RDAP server, even if that does not allow to encode the path (but maybe a solution with .well-

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 14:32, Gavin Brown wrote: >> 1. client implementers should be advised to prefer https:// base URLs >> over http:// base URLs. > > I think this is already addressed by this text in the current RFC: > " >Per [RFC7258], in e

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On 4 Aug 2020, at 12:47, Patrick Mevzek wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 08:46, Marc Blanchet wrote: if anyone has a something to raise for RFC7484, please send me email asap. Hello Marc, Also about: " Because these registries will be accessed by software, the download demand for the R

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On 4 Aug 2020, at 15:32, Gavin Brown wrote: Hi Marc, as Scott is updating RFC7482,RFC7483 for standard level, I’m doing the same for rfc7484. I haven’t heard major issues or major fixes to be made for rfc7484. I have a few wording fixes only at this time. There were some discussions on enh

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 14:32, Gavin Brown wrote: > 1. client implementers should be advised to prefer https:// base URLs > over http:// base URLs. I think this is already addressed by this text in the current RFC: " Per [RFC7258], in each array of base RDAP URLs, the secure versions of

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

Hi Marc, > as Scott is updating RFC7482,RFC7483 for standard level, I’m doing the same > for rfc7484. I haven’t heard major issues or major fixes to be made for > rfc7484. I have a few wording fixes only at this time. There were some > discussions on enhancing RFC7484 for other use cases, but n

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

In article you write: >On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 08:46, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> if anyone has a something to raise for RFC7484, please send me email >> asap. > >Hello Marc, > >Maybe just an update regarding TLS: >s/RFC5246/RFC8446/ >but depending on what IANA webservers support or not. The curre

Re: [regext] rfc7484bis

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 08:46, Marc Blanchet wrote: > if anyone has a something to raise for RFC7484, please send me email > asap. Hello Marc, Maybe just an update regarding TLS: s/RFC5246/RFC8446/ but depending on what IANA webservers support or not. Also about: " Because these registries

[regext] rfc7484bis

Hello, as Scott is updating RFC7482,RFC7483 for standard level, I’m doing the same for rfc7484. I haven’t heard major issues or major fixes to be made for rfc7484. I have a few wording fixes only at this time. There were some discussions on enhancing RFC7484 for other use cases, but never wen