On 10/3/24 13:15, Mario Loffredo wrote:
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 p
On 10/4/24 04:44, Mario Loffredo wrote:
[ML] I was talking about "unrequested extensions" which can be
different from "unknown extensions". I remind you that:
1) some custom extensions reported in the RDAP Extensions registry are
returned by default, most likely to make the RDAP response cons
Hi.
Please see my comments, marked [JS].
Jasdip
From: Hollenbeck, Scott
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 at 11:42 AM
To: a...@hxr.us , regext@ietf.org
Subject: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
From: Andrew Newton (andy)
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:41 AM
T
From: Jasdip Singh
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 3:53 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; a...@hxr.us; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open
On 10/3/24 10:57, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
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
Andy,
Andy,
I don’t believe the bumping of “rdap_level_0” to “rdap_level_1” would be based
on whether “rdap_level_1” is backward compatible with “rdap_level_0”, but
whether “rdap_level_1” is functionally different. If
“draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions” updates the base RFCs by adding new
fu
From: Andrew Newton (andy)
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:41 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
On 10/3/24 08:26, Gould, James wrote:
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
Just to close the loop on this request, the Chairs would like to acknowledge
this request for WGLC of this document.
However, given the review and activity on the list it’s pretty clear there are
some technical concerns that are not fully resolved yet. As such, the Chairs
will not be taking an
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-11.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the
IETF.
Title: RDAP RIR Search
Authors: Tom Harrison
Jasdip Singh
Name:draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-11.txt
Pages:
Andy,
As it relates to the Bare Extension Identifiers in section 2.4.5 of
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions. There was much discussion on the mailing
list related to what is being called a “bare extension identifier” in RFC 9537,
where the extension identifier is functioning as a namespace to
From: Joseph Yee
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 9:29 AM
To: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-22.txt
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-10.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the
IETF.
Title: RDAP RIR Search
Authors: Tom Harrison
Jasdip Singh
Name:draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-10.txt
Pages:
Scott,
From: Hollenbeck, Scott
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 at 4:15 PM
To: Jasdip Singh , a...@hxr.us , regext@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
…
I've read draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04 completely and have several
comments to
14 matches
Mail list logo
