[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-15.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-15.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF. Title: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL) values Author: Gavin Brown Name:draft-ietf-regext-

[regext] Re: [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-15.txt

Hi all, I've just submitted draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-15, links to diffs below. As well as Orie's suggestions, Jasdip Singh also provided some typographic corrections which are included in this version. My thanks to him for those. G. > On 22 Jul 2024, at 10:03, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:

[regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type, and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions

Hi, I did a detailed review of the three drafts draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type, and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions for alignment. The following are my findings: 1. draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning includes support for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-me

[regext] Re: Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type, and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions

Speaking as co-Chair: Thank you Jim for these detailed comments. For the working group, the question that will be before us in the discussion on Wednesday, which was also before us at IETF119, is what problem are we trying to solve? The second order question, which was also before us at IET

[regext] Re: Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type, and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions

Jim, I believe we’ve discussed the problem being solved by the draft’s multiple times. To be clear, these are the problems that I see the drafts solving: 1. draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning – While progressing the most recent RDAP extensions it was agreed that there was no formal versionin

[regext] Re: Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type, and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions

Speaking as co-Chair, I would really appreciate some other voices here. I understand Jim’s comments to be distinguishing these documents, although he does suggest some integration options in his detailed comments. So, taking a step back, the question(s) for the working group is do we agree

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning-01.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning-01.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF. Title: Versioning in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Authors: James Gould Daniel Keathley Mario

[regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-05

Hi Jasdip, Can you point to the spot in opsawg-9022-update that states clients are to ignore non-standard data? Also, I see this in the opsawg-9022-update: "When reading data from an unsigned geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside the referring inetnum: object's address range." That to me i

[regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-05

Hi Andy, You are right; my answer for question #2 was incomplete. Per your input, we added the following to a new “Operational Considerations” section in the to-be-published next version of the draft: “It is common for a resource ho

[regext] RESTful EPP draft next session how to move forward

Hi All, During the next REGEXT session on Wednesday we will be asking the WG where to best continue to work on RESTful EPP (REPP). There was broad support for this work during previous sessions and on the mailing list and by other communities such as CENTR (centr.org ) But,

[regext] Re: RESTful EPP draft next session how to move forward

I believe option 1 with the re-charter option is better. It’s not an extension. Compatibility with existing object mapping and extensions should be best-effort, and new extensions should specify whether it applies only to EPP, only to REPP or to both(supporting both is preferred but not mandat