Hi Tobias,
let me disagree with you about some conclusions. My comments are inline.
Il 25/01/2019 23:05, Tobias Sattler ha scritto:
Hi everyone,
After seeing the result of the vote, I, as a representative of a domain
registrar, must express my serious concern about the RDAP Reverse Search
do
Hi everyone,
After seeing the result of the vote, I, as a representative of a domain
registrar, must express my serious concern about the RDAP Reverse Search
document.
A reverse search enables third parties to query RDAP, among other things, so
that all associated domains can be queried using
The DOODLE was officially closed Friday. There was additional person
who selected documents bringing the total number of contributors to 21.
The additional selections did not material change the ranking of the
choices.
Based on raw numbers, the following 5 documents are preferred:
14 Federa
This is the final reminder. The poll will close today.
With 20 participants indicating preferences, I can say that RDAP is the
clear winner. More folks care about RDAP options than about
registry-registrar options.
Here are the top 5 so far (highest to lowest) based on raw numbers:
Federat
Hello Alexander,
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, at 03:25, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> Jim,
>
> thanks for posting that - i've made my choices.
>
>
For the record, I share most if not all of your rant Alexander.
1) I am sad to see this working group and the IETF being a rubberstamp for
documents dis
Thanks to all those who have indicated their document preferences.
This is a reminder we will close the poll tomorrow, so if you haven’t
indicated your preferences please do so.
Currently, there is a small set at the top of the list. More than 5,
although there is a pretty clear top two.
T
I don't view the need for the concrete report formats to be defined as
standards track RFCs, but instead define an IANA registry for the report
formats (e.g., common and optionally proprietary) based on a set of underlying
RFCs (format and report interfaces(s)). This is similar to what has been
Just to round things up ;-)
We had talked to the registries about our proposals from the beginning. It
quickly became clear that they would never implement anything that was not RFC.
Which is why we had to make these submissions at all. It would be a real feat
to say now that these are still dr
Hello Tobias,
trying to settle that with a few last words:
> I think we're more or less on the same page.
[AM] Good to hear. I do agree that we have the same goal, only our paths differ
:)
> Just so we don't misunderstand each other: It's not that we or I don't
> appreciate the work on polic
Hi Alex,
I think we're more or less on the same page.
Just so we don't misunderstand each other: It's not that we or I don't
appreciate the work on policies or even want to deliberately avoid them.
However, they essentially refer to framework conditions only and not to
explicit technical impl
Tobias,
Thanks for coming back to my "rant". A few observations inline:
> However, nowadays most domain registries have withdrawn to the point of
> implementing only their own ideas or approved RFCs. This inevitably leads to
> the situation that proposals for improvement - whoever they come from
Hi Alex,
Thank you very much for your email.
I do understand your point. The original idea behind RFCs is, of course, for
the benefit of the Internet community. What you can question about certain
available drafts - and I'm not just referring to my own.
However, nowadays most domain registries
Jim,
thanks for posting that - i've made my choices.
Sigh.
As i have voiced in the past, I see greatest value when the IETF standardizes
widely used protocols, *OR* important extensions to standards track protocols.
Those are the documents that directly or indirectly affect billions of int
Thanks Scott, for your question. I have also gotten a few private
questions about details of how “selections” will be interpreted and
acted upon. Rather than respond to your specific question let me make a
general statement that I have made privately to a few folks.
Antoin and I are not tryi
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 11:13 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] DOODLE: select your documents
>
> Please take the time to select the documents you support for advancement
> in t
15 matches
Mail list logo
