Hi Andy,
[snip]
On 6/18/24 04:29, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Andy,
what does it mean "interoperable implementation" in RegExt context ?
Best,
Mario
It means the protocol/extension works as expected. If Bob were to
create a client with extension Foo and Alice were to create a server
wit
On 6/20/24 03:35, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Andy,
[snip]
On 6/18/24 04:29, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Andy,
what does it mean "interoperable implementation" in RegExt context ?
Best,
Mario
It means the protocol/extension works as expected. If Bob were to
create a client with extension
Hello Ryan,
On 20.06.24 00:59, Ryan Jaeb wrote:
Hi,
The end of section 3.7 says:
"
Servers that make use of this element MUST use a element
with the value "standard" for all objects that are subject to the
standard or default fee.
"
Does that forbid a response to a "check' command where
fee
Thomas,
I agree that the class is at the domain-level attribute and not at the
command-level attribute, that why it's placed as a sibling element of the objID
element. The "standard" attribute was added at the command-level to support a
mix of standard and non-standard fees for a non-standard
Good Afternoon,
I was not sure if I should reply to this thread or the "Simple" thread but as
the "Simple" thread appears to be a product of this one, I thought I would post
here.
Several years ago, there were many discussions (in the REGEXT WG, the RDAP WG
and others) on how to handle redacti
