Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

Hi Tom, I really appreciated your effort in grouping the rdapConformance tags defined so far because I have always thought that there should be a document addressing the relationship between the rdapConformance tags  and the proposed extensions. Therefore, I encourage you to submit such docu

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

Hi Mario, On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:56:35AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > My opinion is that the part of the rdapConformance tag about the > version number (e.g. _0 or _level_0) should be left out from the > possible rule tying the tag and the related extension for the > following reasons: I'm

[regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't unique to reverse search, I thought it best to start another topic. Section 6 of RFC 7480 introduces the concept of "an IANA registry for prefixes used in JSON [RFC7159] data serialization and URI path segments (see Sectio

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Thanks for clarifying, Scott. Mario Il 28/04/2022 16:27, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't unique to reverse search, I thought it best to start another topic. Section 6 of RFC 7480 introduces the concept of "an IANA registry

Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments

Hello Scott, Please find my comments below. Thanks, Jasdip P.S. Thanks to Tom for his analysis of all current extensions. :) On 4/28/22, 10:27 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote: Since this topic is coming up in the reverse search discussion, but isn't unique to reve