On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 02:51:47PM +, Jasdip Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:19:22AM -0400, Andy Newton wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 03:06:26PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>> 2.4.6:
>>>
>>> "A strict interpretation of this wording where "construction of
>>> the response" re
On 10/2/24 12:33, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Andy,
please find my comments below.
Il 02/10/2024 16:24, Andrew Newton (andy) ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 3:53 AM Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Andy and Jasdip,
have some questions about draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type:
1) rdap_level_0 i
On 10/2/24 11:06, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
I've read draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04 completely and have several comments to
share. An overarching comment is that any update to Standard 95 responses means that the
modified responses will not be consistent with "rdap_level_0". A new identi
Andy,
I view updating the base RFCs as being a material change that would trigger the
need for signaling for interoperability via use of “rdap_level_1”. If what is
defined maintains backward compatibility with what is defined in the base RFCs,
then can a case be made for not having to update t
Andy & Mario,
As far as how to handle “rdap_level_0”, this is applicable to both
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type and draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning,
where we should be consistent. Based on the possibility of
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions having to update RFC 7480, RFC 9082, and RFC
From: Andrew Newton (andy)
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 8:19 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ,
regext@ietf.org
Subject: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
2.4.6:
"A strict interpretation of this wording where "construction of the response"
refers to th
From: Andrew Newton (andy)
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:19 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Comments Regarding
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachme
Il 03/10/2024 14:39, Gould, James ha scritto:
Andy & Mario,
As far as how to handle “rdap_level_0”, this is applicable to both
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type and
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning, where we should be consistent.
Based on the possibility of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extens
