On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote:
>
> [PK] I am typically of an opinion that simple is better than complicated.
>
> In this case however I have my concerns that even though new rules would be
> defined
>
> the specifications not following them would be hard to weed out
>
> maki
Andy,
How about we add to draft-yao-regext-epp-quic and
draft-loffredo-regext-epp-over-http registration in the EPP extension registry,
per RFC 7451? RFC 7451 references both RFC 3735 for guidelines for extending
EPP but also references RFC 5730. RFC 3735 covers guidelines for extending the
Hi Andrew,
On 12.02.25 15:09, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote:
[PK] I am typically of an opinion that simple is better than complicated.
In this case however I have my concerns that even though new rules would be
defined
the specifications not
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:12 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 12.02.25 15:09, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:42 AM Pawel Kowalik wrote:
>
> [PK] I am typically of an opinion that simple is better than complicated.
>
> In this case however I have my concern
Hi Scott,
On 12.02.25 18:06, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
*From:* Pawel Kowalik
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:59 AM
*To:* Andrew Newton (andy)
*Cc:* regext@ietf.org
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt
Hi Andy,
On 12.02.25 17:06, An
Hi Andy,
On 12.02.25 17:06, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Allowing bare identifiers still leave the choice open for extensions which have
a potential of generic use.
Why does requiring a prefix preclude generic use?
Of course technically nothing, because syntactically a prefixed
identifier is
From: Pawel Kowalik
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:59 AM
To: Andrew Newton (andy)
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt
Hi Andy,
On 12.02.25 17:06, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:
Allowing bare identifiers still l
