I'm aware of two other RFCs that also define terms like this: 4949 (security)
and 8499 (DNS). The intended status for this draft is "Standards Track". At
best, this should be Informational in the same way that 4949 is informational.
Neither of these RFCs creates a registry. As such, I don't see
I agree with Scott's feedback on the track being changed to Informational and
removal of the IANA Registry.
Why doesn't this draft match the approach taken io RFC 8499 for DNS
Terminology? The Registration System terms can certainly have overlap with the
DNS terms in RFC 8499, where the RFC
James, Scott, et al,
The motivation for this proposal was to have a registry of available data
elements for everyone who is managing an Internet based registration system
to draw upon. An informational RFC would be a way to communicate the idea
of having such a registry but would not actually cau
Steve, if the draft gives IANA instructions to create a registry, that’ll
happen if the IESG approves the draft for publication as an RFC. The fact that
it’s Informational won’t mean that IANA can’t do it. There is no “protocol” in
the draft. As such, Standards Track makes no sense.
As I said
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 : RDAP RIR Search
Authors : Tom Harrison
Jasdip Singh
Filename
