Hi Wes,
>> Policy changes will almost certainly only happen infrequently, and the
>> omission was intentional on my point. Do you feel it warrants some
>> discussion in the document?
>
> I think inserting a warning note would be helpful to the reader.
> Something along the lines of "Although a cl
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning-02.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
In draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning-02 we addressed some issues found during
review, which includes changing the "versioning-help" member to
"versioning_help", fixing the sections structure, and including a reference to
"rdap_level_0" in the "versioning_help" list. Please review and provide an
Dear James Galvin,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
regext Session 1 (2:00 requested)
Monday, 4 November 2024, Session II 1300-1500 Europe/Dublin
Room Name: Liffey Hall 1 [Breakou
From: Mario Loffredo
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 2:44 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; jasd...@arin.net;
a...@hxr.us; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: Extension Identifiers in
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do n
Hi Scott,
It is the latter. “domains/rirSearch1//” re-uses the
“domains” path segment from RFC 9082 and then adds child path segments.
This is also how we do in reverse search (RFC 9536). For example,
“/domains/reverse_search/entity?handle=CID-40*&role=technical”.
Jasdip
From: Hollenbeck, Sco
