On 6/20/24 16:39, rcar...@godaddy.com wrote:
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
Hi Andy,
Taking into account that this proposal is a result of considerations on
rfc9537 I think this draft takes the issue too simplified or easy, just
by removing the difficult part of the problem in rfc9537.
Actually it dictates allowed methods how redaction is done by the
server, practic
On 6/21/24 09:32, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
Hi Andy,
Taking into account that this proposal is a result of considerations
on rfc9537 I think this draft takes the issue too simplified or easy,
just by removing the difficult part of the problem in rfc9537.
If you are saying that this draft is t
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-04.txt is now available. It is
a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF.
Title: Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Authors: Scott Hollenbec
Pawel,
I've uploaded a version 04 of the doc with the practices organized into
observed and potential subsections. We didn't want multiple listings of best
current practices in both sections 5 and 6. Hopefully this version is clear
enough.
Thanks!
Bill
On 6/19/24, 6:37 AM, "kowa...@denic.de
Hi Everyone,
Just adding my 2 cents.
When we were discussing how to redact information, we definitely discussed
using place holder text and it was almost immediately rejected due to the fact
that placeholder text in the phone field would cause the automated parsing
performed by JSON libraries