Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)

Hi. Agree with Scott that we first fix the errata per the original intent of the authors, in order to have the STD 95 docs in a clearer state for the current approach (approach A). Once that's out of the way, we can discuss the merits of the current approach (approach A) versus the 2 newly pro

Re: [regext] RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2

This is where the analysis landed for me as well. Jasdip [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e3QD8z01KpYRd5LwdLBWjHHDoFVAVEL8u7Y52zsDdx0/edit?usp=sharing On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 10:05 PM Jasdip Singh wrote: > > Hi. > > Please find below the revised analysis o

Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding rdapConformance

+1 Thanks, Jasdip On 8/1/22, 9:49 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" wrote: As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a significant topic of discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114. T

Re: [regext] status of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

Hi. +1 for input addressed. Thanks, Jasdip On 8/29/22, 9:45 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" wrote: Mario Loffredo has asked for WGLC for the RDAP reverse search document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/ This document had a WGLC abo

Re: [regext] Second WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

+1 Jasdip On 9/12/22, 9:54 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" wrote: Dear Working Group, The authors of the following working group document have indicated that it is believed to be ready for submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document: https:

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-17

Hi. Overall, +1. While reviewing the latest draft, wanted to share few comments (sorry, if a bit late): 1.2: "willing to share more information about them self" ... Minor: wouldn't "themselves" read better than "them self"? 1.2: "It can also provide the ability to collect additional user iden

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-17

Hello Scott, > 1.2: "It can also provide the ability to collect additional user > identification > information, and that information can be shared with the consent of the > user." > ... Not clear who that information could be shared with. [SAH] "shared with the RDAP serv

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-16.txt

Hi. Very interesting discussion. :) Couple of inputs regarding the proposed discovery and IANA registration of reverse search properties: In the spirit of what-not-to-do, is it really necessary to evolve reverse search this way? As long as each registered extension identifier (current and futu

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Hello James, Since we are trying to get away for the placeholder text "" with this standards-track proposal, agree option #1 makes sense to discourage such practice. Further, agree with Jody that returning the "redacted" rdapConformance should make it ample clear when an RDAP server switche

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

James, +1 for option #1. :) Jasdip From: "Gould, James" Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 3:33 PM To: "Keathley, Daniel" , Andy Newton , "mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it" Cc: "jkol...@godaddy.com" , "jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org&quo

Re: [regext] New version of rdap-reverse-search

Hi. Per the comments in [1], it would be good to settle if the proposed discovery and IANA registration of reverse search properties is an overkill or not. Specifically: * Is the newly proposed "reverse_search_properties" member in the help response (section 5) needed? * Is the newly p

Re: [regext] New version of rdap-reverse-search

: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 4:50 AM To: Jasdip Singh , Antoin Verschuren , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] New version of rdap-reverse-search Hi Jasdip, seems to me that the majority was so much in favor of both the help response extension and the ad-hoc IANA registry t

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-20.txt

Hello Scott, Firstly, thank you for including both session-oriented and token-oriented client scenarios in this doc. Makes it easier for comparison. Please find my input to your question below. Regards, Jasdip On 1/26/23, 2:10 PM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" mailto:regext-boun...

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

Hello Heather, Steve, Overall, this doc should prove useful to anyone embarking on creating or evolving a registration protocol. While reviewing the latest draft, had some observations/feedback (sorry for the delay): Unless this doc, as-is, is intended for just the DNRs (Domain Name Registries

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-19.txt

Hello Mario, Please find below my comments on this draft: - Title: Would it be better to re-title the doc as simply "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse Search" since we tend to mention it in discussions as "reverse search" and not "reverse search capabilities"? - Section 3: Typo "r

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-19.txt

Hi Mario, On 3/9/23, 5:41 AM, "Mario Loffredo" mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> wrote: > - Section 3: "Servers MUST NOT provide or implement unregistered reverse > searches or unregistered reverse search mappings." ... Does "unregistering" > entries from these IANA registries mean removing t

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-19.txt

On 3/9/23, 12:34 PM, "Mario Loffredo" mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> wrote: >> - Section 3: "Servers MUST NOT provide or implement unregistered reverse >> searches or unregistered reverse search mappings." ... Does "unregistering" >> entries from these IANA registries mean removing them,

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-19.txt

with the original statement now but wonder if it could confuse someone else. Thanks, Jasdip On 3/9/23, 12:51 PM, "regext on behalf of Jasdip Singh" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of jasd...@arin.net <mailto:jasd...@arin.net>> wrote: On 3/9/23, 12:34 PM, "M

Re: [regext] Fwd: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20.txt

Thank you, Mario. Yes, they have been. Regards, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:02 AM To: "regext@ietf.org" , Jasdip Singh Subject: [regext] Fwd: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20.txt Hi Ja

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

+1 Jasdip On 3/20/23, 9:41 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of gal...@elistx.com > wrote: The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for submission to the IESG to be considered for publica

Re: [regext] JSContact issues

Hi. Just wanted to inject couple of inputs, marked [JS]. Thanks, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:40 AM To: Andy Newton Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] JSContact issues HI Andy, again my comments below. Il 20/03

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

On 3/22/23, 5:44 PM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of a...@hxr.us > wrote: Ok. I did find one small issue. Should the draft give explicit mention of returning an HTTP 501 for searches not supported by a server? [JS] Section 1 o

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

Hello Mario, Please find my comment below. Thanks, Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 6:18 AM To: Jasdip Singh , Andy Newton , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20 Hi Jasdip, Il 01/04/2023 23:55, Jasdi

Re: [regext] [EXTERNAL] Re: jCard to JSContact transition

Hi. If the response size increase is not a concern when both jCard and JSContact objects are returned for some time, it seems Andy’s proposal (option 3) is the way to go. IMO, it keeps things simple without having to worry about which query parameter to set on the client side. Additionally, a s

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 7:57 AM Jasdip Singh <mailto:jasd...@arin.net> wrote: What I gather from Andy’s suggestion is that 501 could also be returned for the reverse search queries that are not implemented (supported) on the server side. That said, your observation of applying HTTP

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

On 4/4/23, 12:33 PM, "Andrew Newton" mailto:a...@hxr.us>> wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:20 AM Hollenbeck, Scott mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: > > [SAH] Nit: as alluded to by Jasdip above, RFC 7231 has been obsoleted by RFC > 9110. > > > > The 501 text is 9110 is consistent with 7231

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

On 4/5/23, 8:40 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Mario Loffredo > > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:24 AM > To: Andrew Newton mailto:a...@hxr.us>>; Hollenbeck, Scott > mailto:shollenb...@verisi

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

Hello Mario, I have attached my comment to Scott’s comment in the other thread. :) Thanks, Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:07 AM To: Jasdip Singh , Andy Newton Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-2

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

On 4/5/23, 12:56 PM, "Mario Loffredo" mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> wrote: >> [SAH] Nit: as alluded to by Jasdip above, RFC 7231 has been >> obsoleted by RFC 9110. >> >> The 501 text is 9110 is consistent with 7231, but I don’t think >> it’s limited to an inval

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20

From: Mario Loffredo Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:28 PM To: Jasdip Singh , "Hollenbeck, Scott" , Andy Newton Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-20 Il 07/04/2023 18:56, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: On 4/5/23, 12:56

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-11

+1 Thanks, Jasdip On 4/17/23, 9:27 AM, "regext on behalf of Antoin Verschuren" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org > wrote: The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for submission to t

Re: [regext] Fwd: [Ext] Re: Redacting JSContact uid in RDAP - Updated

Hi. Agree with James’ input -- not violating the JSContact spec for the mandatory uid, and using the redaction-by-replacement method. Using a nil UUID as a replacement string for uid looks elegant. Thanks, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of "Gould, James" Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:2

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-12.txt

Hi. Reviewed this latest draft. Overall, still +1 for the next step. :) But, in case it helps clarify further, wanted to share these observations: Section 1: "The redacted JSON fields will either be removed or have empty values in the RDAP response." ... Isn't that incomplete, now that we have

Re: [regext] [EXTERNAL] Re: jCard to JSContact transition

start with, an RDAP client could cleanly ignore the data type it does not understand at any point. (Re-read what Andy and Rick said below, and still concur with their inputs.) Thanks, Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 8:34 AM To: Jasdip Singh , Rick Wilhelm , Andy Newton

Re: [regext] [EXTERNAL] Re: jCard to JSContact transition

Sorry, missed the original proposer of option 3 – Marc. Obviously, agree with him! :) Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Jasdip Singh Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 7:57 PM To: Mario Loffredo , Rick Wilhelm , Andy Newton Cc: Marc Blanchet , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: R

Re: [regext] Thoughts on the fundamental premise of JSContact

True, we could define an entity object class that serves the DNR and RIR purposes with a simpler JSON, just like we chose to define domain, IP network, and autonomous system number object classes that are specific to these registries' business. However, before abandoning the JSContact effort, on

Re: [regext] Thoughts on the fundamental premise of JSContact

ilto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>> wrote: Hi Jasdip, Il 08/06/2023 15:39, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: > True, we could define an entity object class that serves the DNR and RIR > purposes with a simpler JSON, just like we chose to define domain, IP > network, and autonomous system number

Re: [regext] Thoughts on the fundamental premise of JSContact

Hello Mario, After reviewing the PatchObject data type [1] in JSContact, one question: How would the JSON serialization/deserialization work for a JSONPointer as a key (read: member name) in a PatchObject, given a programming language like Java does not allow a forward slash ( '/' ) in a variab

Re: [regext] Thoughts on the fundamental premise of JSContact

Cool, so looks like the Jackson library affords a seamless way to deal with JSPointer’s as keys. Thanks for pointing to that test. Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 4:30 AM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.

Re: [regext] Thoughts on the fundamental premise of JSContact

Indeed, was not concerned about keys starting with ‘@’, given they are deterministic unlike the dynamic JSONPointer strings as keys. Thanks, Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:30 PM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" , "jgould=40verisign

Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-rdap-opened-22

+1 Thanks, Jasdip On 6/26/23, 10:02 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of gal...@elistx.com > wrote: The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for submission to the IESG to be considered fo

Re: [regext] status draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-12

Hi. I agree with Andy that there is no benefit in holding back this I-D from the IESG submission. If possible, would like my previous note on this subject addressed though. :) Thanks, Jasdip On 6/26/23, 10:39 AM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf o

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-12.txt

Hello James, I'm fine with all the changes you propose. Thanks for the explanations. Jasdip On 6/26/23, 3:17 PM, "Gould, James" mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote: Section 1: "The redacted JSON fields will either be removed or have empty values in the RDAP response." ... Isn't that incomplet

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-simple-contact-00.txt

On 7/5/23, 3:44 PM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of a...@hxr.us > wrote: > 5) I'm very curious to know the WG reaction about the use of "noJCard" > extension. AFAIK, providing an alternative represention along with > jCard in

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type-00.txt

Hi. On 7/17/23, 7:36 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org > wrote: > As an aside note of the considerations at point 1, would like to know > the current WG's opin

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type-00.txt

On 7/17/23, 11:01 AM, "regext on behalf of kowa...@denic.de " mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of kowa...@denic.de > wrote: Am 17.07.23 um 13:36 schrieb Hollenbeck, Scott: > >> As an aside note of the considerations at point 1, would l

Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type-00.txt

On 7/17/23, 3:47 PM, "Pawel Kowalik" mailto:kowa...@denic.de>> wrote: Am 17.07.2023 um 17:32 schrieb Jasdip Singh mailto:jasd...@arin.net>>: > > [JS] This is a fair point, Pawel. Would you suggest considering the latter > method (query parameters) as well, give

[regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jasdips-regext-rdap-geofeed-00.txt

ernet-dra...@ietf.org <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>" mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-jasdips-regext-rdap-geofeed-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Jasdip Singh and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-jasdips-regext-rdap-geof

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

forward to feedback from others. Jasdip [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-extensions/ From: "Gould, James" Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:53 PM To: "t...@apnic.net" , Jasdip Singh , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search Feedback

Hello James, Given the feedback during the regext session in Prague, we’ll proceed with your suggestion of registering 2 additional extension id’s – “ips” and “autnums” – beside “rir_search”. Thanks, Jasdip From: "Gould, James" Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 3:35 PM To: Ja

[regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

Hello Antoin, Jim, Given the ongoing discussion on how to negotiate extensions between RDAP clients and servers (using HTTP headers versus query parameters), be it for SimpleContact [1], JSContact [2], or versioning in RDAP [3], Andy and I want to request a call for WG adoption of the RDAP-X dr

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

7:46 PM To: Jasdip Singh , "regext-cha...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" , Andy Newton Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption I don’t support adoption at this point until there is consensus around the use of query parameters for all RDAP queries, including RDAP searches

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

James, Please find below my comments. From: "Gould, James" Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 8:29 AM To: Jasdip Singh , "regext-cha...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" , Andy Newton Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption You state, “Since query paramet

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-jasdips-regext-rdap-geofeed

Hi Tim, They are updating it ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-02 ). This RDAP draft refers it. Thanks, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Tim Wicinski Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 at 10:36 AM To: Ties de Kock Cc: regext Subject: Re: [regext] CALL FOR

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

Hello Pawel, Good observations! Please find my comments below. (Andy, please add/subtract here if needed. :)) Thanks, Jasdip From: Date: Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:51 AM To: Jasdip Singh , "regext-cha...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" , Andy Newton Subject: Re: [

Re: [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: Re: RDAP-X draft adoption

+1 Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 3:09 AM To: "Gould, James" , "gal...@elistx.com" , Jasdip Singh Cc: "regext-cha...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" , Andy Newton Subject: Re: [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: Re: RDAP-X draf

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

e IETF. Title: An RDAP Extension for Geofeed Data Authors: Jasdip Singh Tom Harrison Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-01.txt Pages: 10 Dates: 2023-12-17 Abstract: This document defines a new RDAP extension "geofeed1" for including a geofeed file URL in an IP Network object. The IET

Re: [regext] WG Adoption Request: draft-hollenbeck-regext-epp-delete-bcp

+1 for adoption. Jasdip From: regext on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" Date: Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:59 AM To: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [regext] WG Adoption Request: draft-hollenbeck-regext-epp-delete-bcp draft-hollenbeck-regext-epp-delete-bcp was updated yesterday to address the m

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search

Hi Scott, Just to clarify, when a specification defines multiple extension identifiers (like the RIR Search does), would you interpret what's in RFC 9083 (section 4.1) to only include those identifiers for a response that were relevant for the construction of the response (e.g., not including "

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search

could happen again. Jasdip On 1/30/24, 2:40 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: Yes, the former, Jasdip. As in, the client should know which extensions it needs to process _in a specific response_. Scott > -Original Message----- > Fro

Re: [regext] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning draft-newton-regext-rdap-extensions draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type

+1. Would help review the versioning draft. Thanks, Jasdip On 2/5/24, 9:37 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin" mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of gal...@elistx.com > wrote: This is the formal adoption request for the following package of Internet Draft

Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search

Hello Andy, Scott, Let’s take a specific example from the RIR search draft (a specification with multiple extension identifiers defined) to test-drive these options. Say, an IP network search response: { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "rirSearch1",

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: RDAP and link context

Hi. Did some digging on this. Right, RFC 7483 had only “href” as a MUST. RFC 7483bis (eventually RFC 9083) additionally made “rel” and “value” as MUST’s. Looks like the “rel” MUST came about because of RFC 8288 mandating so [1], and the RDAP Deployment Findings and Update draft highlighting so

Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: RDAP and link context

Thanks, Scott. RFC 8288 (obsoletes RFC 5988) also retains this requirement (in section 2). Jasdip From: Hollenbeck, Scott Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 at 11:28 AM To: Jasdip Singh , james.mitch...@iana.org , a...@hxr.us Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: RE: [regext] [Ext] Re: RDAP and link

Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter

Hi. Curious if the newly proposed “RESTful EPP” is considered a new protocol that is different from EPP, or is it an “extension” of EPP? (AFAICT, the former seems outside the current regext charter.) Thanks, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 at

Re: [regext] EPP evolution and the REGEXT charter

ground, irrespective of XML and/or JSON representations. It would help to settle whether REPP gets done within regext (leveraging EPP expertise), or in a new WG. Thanks, Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 7:34 PM To: Jasdip Singh , Hollenbeck, Scott

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback

Hello James, Thanks for your feedback! Please find my comments below. Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Gould, James Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 at 11:58 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback Ahead of the REGEXT meeting later today, I too

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback

Hi Andy, Thanks for your feedback. One comment below. Jasdip From: Andrew Newton (andy) Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 at 11:42 AM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: Gould, James , regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback > I recommend including a registrat

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback

OK, will remove redaction from the next version of RDAP Geofeed. Thanks, Jasdip From: Hollenbeck, Scott Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 at 2:20 PM To: Jasdip Singh , a...@hxr.us Cc: Gould, James , regext@ietf.org Subject: RE: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback From

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback

: Gould, James Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 at 12:30 PM To: Jasdip Singh , a...@hxr.us Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback Jasdip, I don’t see an issue with removing the redaction section from draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed, since I believe

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback

Agreed. Thanks, Jasdip From: Gould, James Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 7:37 AM To: Jasdip Singh , a...@hxr.us Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-02 Review Feedback Jasdip, I view the decision to redact or not redact purely a server policy decision

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-03.txt

hors: Jasdip Singh Tom Harrison Name:draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-03.txt Pages: 10 Dates: 2024-04-03 Abstract: This document defines a new RDAP extension "geofeed1" for including a geofeed file URL in an IP Network object. The IETF datatracker status

Re: [regext] Re-chartering REGEXT?

Hi. Agreed. For REPP, should be more productive to update the regext charter to help leverage the expertise from this WG. Jasdip From: regext on behalf of Maarten Wullink Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 2:23 AM To: George Michaelson Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Re-chartering

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-05.txt

Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF. Title: An RDAP Extension for Geofeed Data Authors: Jasdip Singh Tom Harrison Name:draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-05.txt Pages: 10 Dates: 2024-04-19 Abstract: This document defines a new

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Hi Gavin, Can RFC 8982 (RDAP Partial Response) [1] not be leveraged to solve this? Jasdip [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8982.html From: Maarten Wullink Date: Friday, May 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM To: Marc Blanchet Cc: Gavin Brown , Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: [regext] Re:

[regext] WGLC request for RIR Search and RDAP Geofeed drafts

Hi Jim, Antoin, Knowing that we have WGLC going on for couple of EPP related drafts, request that we start WGLC for the RIR Search (would be second WGLC for it) [1] and RDAP Geofeed [2] drafts when possible. AFAIK, Tom and I have addressed the WG feedback so far for these drafts. Thanks, Jasdi

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Hi. It is a bit unfortunate for us as a WG that we missed the fundamental shortcomings of the JSONPath usage for redaction, as highlighted in the draft below. Especially, the “prePath” portion where a client would have no idea about how to apply that expression to the response in hand. Though t

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

d in 5.1.1 with a clear recommendation for the client implementers. Not enough? [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/nP9BZFbwhOkgiMim9s5upRqCYRs/ Kind Regards, Pawel On 11.06.24 06:28, Jasdip Singh wrote: Hi. It is a bit unfortunate for us as a WG that we missed the fundamental short

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

there. :) Thanks, Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 6:27 AM To: Jasdip Singh , Andrew Newton (andy) , regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt Hi Jasdip, I'm inclined to

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Hi James, Please find my comments below. Thanks, Jasdip From: Gould, James Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:47 AM To: Jasdip Singh , mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

17, 2024 at 10:38 AM To: Jasdip Singh , mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt From: Gould, James Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:47 AM To: Jasdip Singh

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Good to know, Gavin. :) Jasdip From: Gavin Brown Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:46 AM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt Hi Jasdip, > On 24 May 2024, at 17:58, Jasdip Si

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

used, prevent the redaction of a single item. From: Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 3:33 AM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt Hi Jasdip, AFAIU, the name.type

[regext] Re: WGLC request for RIR Search and RDAP Geofeed drafts

Thanks, Jim. Jasdip From: James Galvin Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at 5:02 PM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC request for RIR Search and RDAP Geofeed drafts Thanks Jasdip. We’ll do these in parallel as soon as we get “delete-bcp” closed up. Jim and Antoin

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

Hi Mario, From: Mario Loffredo Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 at 9:56 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-05 Have reviewed this document. Per what is stated in section 3, it's not clear to me what servers should do whenever the geofeed file exposes

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

Thanks, Mario. Will make the section 3 change in the next version. Jasdip From: Mario Loffredo Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 at 3:16 AM To: Jasdip Singh , regext@ietf.org Subject: [regext] Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-05 Il 17/07/2024 01:01, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: Hi Mario

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

Hi Andy, Thanks for these insightful questions. Tom and I discussed them. Let me try answering. :) Tom, please add/subtract if needed. Jasdip From: Andrew Newton (andy) Date: Thursday, July 18, 2024 at 3:19 PM To: REGEXT Working Group , Jasdip Singh , t...@apnic.net Subject: [regext] Re

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

Hi James, Thanks for this feedback. Yes, Tom and I also think that replacing RECOMMENDED with MUST should help tighten the spec. For details, please see my response to Andy’s question #3 in the other thread. Jasdip From: Gould, James Date: Friday, July 19, 2024 at 8:28 AM To: gal...@elistx.co

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

find a geofeed link object within an IP network object MUST ignore geofeed data from that link that is outside the IP network object's address range.” Hope this helps clarify. Thanks, Jasdip From: Andrew Newton (andy) Date: Monday, July 22, 2024 at 3:30 PM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: REGEXT Workin

[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-06.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-06.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF. Title: An RDAP Extension for Geofeed Data Authors: Jasdip Singh Tom Harrison Name:draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-06.txt

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

Hi James, Andy and I reviewed your note and believe it would be better to keep the RDAP-X and Versioning drafts separate. The RDAP-X media type leverages the standard HTTP content negotiation using the Accept and Content-Type headers and is guaranteed to seamlessly work for any RDAP response s

Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt

Hello Scott, Here is my (mostly minor) feedback: 1. 4.8 For consistency with other examples, add spaces before and after ‘:’ in the publicIds example. 2. 5.1 Similarly, add spaces before and after ‘:' in the entity example. (There could be other places in the whole doc.) 3. 5.3 Should

Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt

I agree with your comments, Scott. Thanks. Jasdip On May 6, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks for the feedback, Jasdip. More below… From: Jasdip Singh mailto:jasd...@arin.net>> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:28 AM To: Holle

Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt

Section 5.1: I wonder which kinds of relationships model both the entity properties "networks" and "autnums". I mean, do they model the reverse relationships between, respectively, a network or an autnum and the related entities or something else? [SAH] Maybe one of the RIR guys can address th

[regext] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00

Hello Scott. While doing the shepherd writeup, noted few minor things which may help polish the doc further. * 5.5: Add “The” to the "Autonomous System Number Object Class” section title to be consistent with others. * 1, 5, 5.4, 5.5, 7, 8: Looks like the [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis]

Re: [regext] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00

Yah, those missing links could be because of the HTML version of the doc. Please ignore that. Jasdip On Jun 11, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: From: regext mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh Sent: Thursday, J

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00.txt

On Jun 17, 2020, at 9:23 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott mailto:shollenbeck=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: 7) Section 10.2.3 - The definition of "last changed" event type seems to be inconsistent with "upDate" defined in RFC 5731,5732,5733. For example, I report an extract from RFC5731 here in

Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the phrase "specifications used in the construction of the response." It is about what specifications were used for the returned response. No? Jasdip On 7/31/20, 10:28 AM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo" wrote:

Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

Hello Mario, Please find my comment below. Jasdip On 7/31/20, 12:21 PM, "Mario Loffredo" wrote: Il 31/07/2020 16:35, Jasdip Singh ha scritto: > IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the phrase "specifications used in the construction of

Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

Agree with Patrick's points about rdapConformance in the help response informing about all capabilities and rdapConformance being more specific for a particular query response. Jasdip On 7/31/20, 12:29 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 11:21, Holl

  1   2   >