I agree.
-andy
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:43 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: RFC Errata System
> > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 12:40 PM
> > To: a...@arin.net; Hollenbeck, Scott ;
> > b...@nostrum.com; aamelni...@fastmail.fm; a...@nostrum.com;
> > o...@nl
On 01/03/2019 15:03, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Instead of updating RFC5733 I would suggest creating a new object,
> a "light (or shallow) contact" which is like a contact currently, just with
> less fields.
> Domains could use "full contacts" (the ones we know today) or light contacts
>
OK, I'll confirm it since no one has raised any objections.
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Newton
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:14 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; a...@arin.net; b...@nostrum.com;
> aamelni...@fastmail.fm; a...@nostrum.com; o...@n
Someone with appropriate access will need to document our verification of this
report:
"This page is for use by specified members of the IAB, IESG, IRSG, RFC
Editorial Board, and the RFC Editor. Please contact rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
with questions.".
Scott
> -Original Message-
> Fr
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, at 07:42, Gavin Brown wrote:
> > Instead of updating RFC5733 I would suggest creating a new object,
> > a "light (or shallow) contact" which is like a contact currently, just with
> > less fields.
> > Domains could use "full contacts" (the ones we know today) or light
> >
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7482,
"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5621
--
Status: Verified
Type
Howdy,
I note John suggests a reference to either RFC 8499 or RFC 5980. The
latter is almost certainly meant to be RFC 5890, since that is the
definitions and document framework for the IDNA 2008 series. I would
disagree, however, that this is a useful reference, since neither RFC 5980
or RFC 59
