Hi,
please find my thoughts below.
Il 23/05/2022 21:26, Gould, James ha scritto:
Tom,
In reviewing the thread below, I'll summarize my thoughts below that
goes along with my response with Approach C to Jasdip:
1. It looks like there is consensus that the existing language in the
RDAP
From: regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:02 AM
To: "Gould, James" , "t...@apnic.net"
Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments
…
2.It looks like there is consensus that the RDA
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 the
IETF.
Title : Federated Authentication for the Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP) using OpenID Connect
Au
Approach A – “tight coupling” and Approach B “lack of tight coupling “ treats
the RDAP Conformance value not as hint to the specifications used in the
construction of the response, as defined in section 4.1 of RFC 9083, but
instead as defining the prefix value of the extension elements (URI path
Noted, like the idea to make the name more consistent.
Thanks
Joseph
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:09 PM Gould, James wrote:
> Joseph,
>
>
>
> As you’re working on the feedback, one additional feedback item is making
> the Timestamp Data Elements more consistent. For example, there is the use
> o
