Hi Scott,
“documents were moved” refers to the fact that the link to the XML spec at the
IANA page doesn’t work any longer. The “manual” link in the notes points to an
older version.
The new link points to a summary page where we publish the XML and the manual.
The newest manual got an update b
Patrick, my expectation is that the value registered with IANA is the exact
value that should appear in an rdapConformance section. The purpose of these
values is to clearly identify an associated specification, so one should be
able to extract an identifier from an RDAP response, look it up in
I just submitted an errata report for this.
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Newton
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 10:06 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: p...@dotandco.com; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and
> RFC 7484
I agree with Scott. The idea is to prevent collision and provide an
easy way to lookup the spec in the IANA registry.
These are supposed to be opaque identifiers. If an extension author
wants to add their own sub-label versioning, I guess that is ok but in
my opinion they are making things more co
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8521,
"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5896
--
Type: Technical
Re
