Re: [regext] I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

2023-11-16 Thread kowalik
Hi Jack, Skimming through the document I have 3 questions / observations: 1) why you decided to break the flow into 2 commands with create and validate? What shall happen afterwards to the object(s) created in the first step? In this context the approach in draft-ietf-regext-validate to have

Re: [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: split draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact

2023-11-16 Thread Mario Loffredo
Hi Andy, please find my comments inline. Il 15/11/2023 14:41, Andrew Newton ha scritto: Mario (and JG), On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 5:17 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: [ML] About preserving query parameters in HTTP redirection, my opinion is that it depends on each application protocol built over HTT

Re: [regext] [EXT] Re: I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

2023-11-16 Thread Jacques Latour
Hi Pawel, Great questions, see inline. I’ve seen a few other emails on different ID that had simar concept, we can integrate for sure. Didn’t get a change to read/skim those. Jacques CLASSIFICATION:CONFIDENTIAL From: kowa...@denic.de Sent: November 16, 2023 3:27 AM To: Jacques Latour ; r

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

2023-11-16 Thread Andrew Newton
Jim, You are now stating that redirection is a "special case" and using the word "claim" which I perceive as you being dismissive of the validity of their need. As I have repeatedly written on this list and these threads, redirection is very much used when dealing with the transfer of number resou

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

2023-11-16 Thread Gould, James
Andy, I didn't mean to be dismissive of the existence or need of redirection services. I just don't view the redirection services as the primary use case for RDAP servers and the RDAP protocol itself. We can agree to disagree on this. The reason for the word "claim" is to address a gap tha

Re: [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: split draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact

2023-11-16 Thread Andrew Newton
Mario, On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 9:28 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: > > > Also, since you (and JG) have been arguing vehemently on your > position, did you find a technical flaw in the rdap-x draft? Have you > found a scenario where it does not work? > > [ML] Am not "arguing vehemently", I'm quietly exp

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

2023-11-16 Thread Andrew Newton
Jim, I offered two very concrete examples of the problem and you have once again called it a "claim". And you don't see how that can be perceived as dismissive? Anway, Jasdip already answered your broader question, and now you are asking for discussion on hypotheticals that are likely to meander.

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

2023-11-16 Thread Gould, James
Andy, Jasdip just answered "no" to the question around addressing the broader question and did not provide any details. You did not answer my question around TLD transitions, and you have not answered the question related to when query parameters can and cannot be used in RDAP. Thanks, --

Re: [regext] I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

2023-11-16 Thread Jody Kolker
Hi Jacques, A couple of observations: 1. Would it be possible to allow the registry to determine if the verification can be done instantly or needs to be delayed. If it is instantly, return a 1000 with the results, if it can't return 1001. If the verification can be done instantly a veri