On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 09:49:19AM -0400, 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.
>
> Three options were prop
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:45:11AM -0400, 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 about 6 months ago that resulted in quite
> some exten
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:54:32PM +0200, 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://datatracker.iet
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:03:35PM +0800, James Galvin wrote:
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is
> ready for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as
> a Proposed Standard:
>
> Federated Authentication for the Registration Data Access Protocol
>
Hi Scott,
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 06:39:30PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>> In section 4.1.1, the "farv1_session" data structure has a member
>> called "clientID", defined as being "a string value that represents
>> the client identifier associated with the session". The example
>> indicates t
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:29:40PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
What should a logged-in end user see when they submit a standard
RDAP query, but their session has expired?
>>>
>>> [SAH] The query should be processed as if no
>>> identification/authentication information is available. T
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 03:26:09PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> This extended WGLC will close tonight.
>
> This WGLC started with version 12 of the document, and during WGLC,
> we had 2 changes to the document.
>
> We therefor need the following for us to move this document along
> after WGL
Hi Mario,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 04:49:08PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> I apologize but I just realized that I put an Informational RFC, namely
> 6973, among the Normative References.
>
> Since the doment is still in WGLC, I would like to know if you agree on
> moving that reference to the In
Hi Mario,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> With regard to the registration of the reverse search properties, I
> have opted for adding entries in the RDAP JSON Values registry
> rather than defining an ad-hoc registry.
>
> That is because servers must include the
Hi Mario,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:42:56AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 22/11/2022 14:00, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> With regard to the registration of the reverse search properties,
>>> I have
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 02:18:35PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 24/11/2022 13:46, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> This is the part I (still) don't follow, sorry. The fact that the
>> label is a JSON value in the "reverse_search_properties" member of
>
Hi Mario,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:19:20PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 27/11/2022 22:49, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 02:18:35PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> Even now there is no real way to prevent collisions since
>>> extension iden
Hi all,
We've had some positive feedback on this document so far, and would
like to request adoption of it as a working group document.
-Tom
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:06:03AM -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:56:57PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> While RFC 8521 says "RDAP responses that contain values described
>>> in this document MUST
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Hi all, can all people that commented on
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search since the start of the
> previous last call (Tom, Pawel, Jasdip) confirm that all their
> issues are now addressed in version 17, so that the documen
Hi Antoin,
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:23:26PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Since you were the last one to comment, can you please confirm that
> the issues you raised on version 17 of this document are now
> resolved and the document is stable so we can issue a WGLC?
Yep, the issues I raised
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:27:23PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> The document editors have indicated that the following document is
> ready for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as
> a Proposed Standard:
>
> Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
Hi Antoin,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:37:54AM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> I have read this draft, and have some comments/requests as discussed
> during our IETF 116 meeting session.
> Most of my remarks are about section 4, Link Relations:
>
> 1. Suggest to replace “operator” with “server o
node.
>
> The use of $.entities[?(@.roles[*]=='administrative')] does not look
> to match the definition and fails with https://jsonpath.com.
>
> I provide more detailed responses to your feedback embedded below.
>
> On 4/25/23, 8:16 PM, "regext on behalf of Tom Har
Hi James,
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:48:11PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:36:18AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote:
>> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 07:50:07PM +, Gould, James wrote:
>>> In relation to the example JSONPath in the draft, they are based
>>
Hi James,
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 09:08:53PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> On 5/22/23, 8:12 AM, "Tom Harrison" mailto:t...@apnic.net>>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:48:11PM +, Gould, James wrote:
>>> For background, the considerations associated
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 01:21:31PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Registration
> Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF.
>
>Title : Redacted Fie
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:58:14AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> 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
Hi James,
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 03:02:34PM +, Jasdip Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 08:34:57PM +, Gould, James wrote:
>> After the IETF-118 REGEXT meeting, I found this message that I
>> never replied to. I believe that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
>> needs to fully follow
Hi James,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:46:32PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> Thanks for making the change. The only adjustment I would make is
> to ensure that the response members for use the registered extension
> identifiers, such as "ips" or "ips_searchResults" instead of
> "ipSearchResults" and
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your feedback.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:55:21PM -0500, Andy Newton wrote:
> 1. The elidation in figure 2 (section 3.4) should be pointed out. At
> first I mistook the hrefs as some sort of relative URLs.
These have been updated to use concrete URLs now.
> 2. It would be he
Hi Mario,
Thanks for your feedback.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:21:42AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> +1
>
> Have just two further notes:
>
> 1) Think it would be good to add normative language about partial
> matching referencing Section 4.1 of RFC 9082 .
Thanks, this has been added.
> 2) Pe
Hi James,
Thanks for your feedback. Comments on non-nits inline:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 08:21:57PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> I did my review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-05, and below
> is my primarily editorial feedback:
>
> 1. Section 1.1 “Requirements Language”
> * Reco
Hi James,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 01:21:05PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> Thanks for making the drafts updates. I will do a detailed review
> of the updated draft.
>
> For the "..." convention, we had to explicitly define it in RFC 8334
> with " The use of "..." is used as shorthand for elemen
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 26/01/2024 04:29, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:21:42AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> 2) Per what is stated in section 4.1 0f RFC9083, the rdapConformance
>>> arra
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:25:23PM -0800, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-07.txt is now available. It
> is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the
> IETF.
>
>Title: RDAP RIR Search
>Aut
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:37:13AM -0500, James Galvin wrote:
> This is the formal adoption request for the following package of
> Internet Drafts:
>
> Versioning in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning/
>
> RDAP Extens
Hi all,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:03:10AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote:
> I believe you are correct that a link context is not well defined.
> It is supposed to be the scope in which a link is to be understood.
RFC 8288 (section 2) has:
This specification does not define a general syntax for li
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 06:07:41PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09.txt is now available. It
> is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the
> IETF.
>
>Title: RDAP RIR Search
>Aut
Hi Scott,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 05:19:07PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> A few small things:
>
> The last call notice refers to the draft as "considered for
> publication as a Best Current Practice". The draft describes itself
> as a Standards Track candidate. I believe that's just an error
Hi James,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 03:02:50PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> Thanks for removing the RECOMMENDED for inclusion of the “geofeed1”
> extension identifier. I’m not clear whether requiring the inclusion
> of the “geofeed1” extension identifier aligns with the paragraph in
> the same sect
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:03:26PM +, Jacques Latour wrote:
> CIRA developed a prototype to test the implementation of the DNS operator RRR
> protocol. There's a web interface, the API itself along with 5 test domains.
>
> The documentation and code is on GitHub: https://github.com/CIRALabs/
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:04:11PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> ...
I support adoption and am willing to contribute/review.
-Tom
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:03:29PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> ...
I support adoption and am willing to contribute/review.
-Tom
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:03:45PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> ...
I support adoption and am willing to contribute/review.
-Tom
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:04:20PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> ...
I support adoption and am willing to contribute/review.
-Tom
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
Hi all,
This draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-harrison-regext-rdap-jcard-profile-00)
is a profile of jCard for use in RDAP. It is based on the jCard
properties/parameters etc. used by the current RDAP servers, plus some
extras that will likely be in use soon (e.g. support for properties i
Hi Mario,
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 01:02:15PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> in this new version the "IANA Considerations" section has been updated to
> include the request for the registration of the "subsetting" value in the
> RDAP Extensions Registry.
Thanks for putting this together. Some com
Hi Mario,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:06:32AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> I have reviewed the "Privacy Considerations" section to outline even more
> that reverse search must be provided only to authenticated and authorized
> users legitimated by a legal basis.
>
> I hope from now on the WG can
Hi Mario,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:20:40PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> in this new version "cc" has been added to the list of sorting properties
> and RFC8605 has been added to the Normative References.
Thanks for putting this together. Some comments/feedback:
- Is there a need to be pres
Hi Mario,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 24/07/2019 16:28, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> - This draft takes a different approach to country/cc values than
>> that taken by the reverse search draft. Why are these values
>> tr
Hi Mario,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 08:08:08PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 24/07/2019 16:29, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> - Section 5 of RFC 7483 suggests that objects should always include a
>> 'self' link, regardless of whether they are top-level objects,
&g
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:43:39PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for
> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track
> document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:43:32PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for
> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track
> document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
>
Hi Mario,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:30:41PM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 02/03/2020 00:49, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> Some questions/comments on section 2.4.2 ("Paging Responses to POST
>> Requests"):
>>
>> - 'Therefore, an RDAP response elem
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:23:45PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> From: regext On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
>> 5) Section 4.4 - The following sentence seems to be inconsistent
>> with the content of some figures (e.g. Fig. 15, 17, 23, ...) where
>> a "lang" element is included in jCard
>>
>>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 07:35:26PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> From: Mario Loffredo
>> In my opinion "errorCode" should be required while "description"
>> should be optional. About "title", I don't have a clear position.
>
> Something else to think about. RFC 7480 describes required error
>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:08:53PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> From: Tom Harrison
>> The motivation for including "except in jCard objects" originally
>> was to make it clear that an implementor couldn't include the lang
>> attribute as defined in
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:52:44PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for
> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track
> document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis
>
> This WG last call w
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for
> submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track
> document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis
>
> This WG last call w
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:03:40PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>> The phrase 'registry-unique identifier' connotes a unique lookup
>>> key for entities, irrespective of their type. It puts the onus on
>>> a registry to ensure so. Does that not suffice?
>>
>> There are cases where the entity
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:46:52AM +0200, Thomas Corte (TANGO support) wrote:
> On 10/7/20 03:17, Tom Harrison wrote:
>>>> The question is whether the RDAP protocol should provide guidance
>>>> with how to handle overlapping non-unique handles.
>>>
>>&
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 08:55:14PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> This is a special second working group last call for:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis/
>
> This document is suggested to be elevated from “proposed standard”
> to "Internet standard” as describe
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> This is a special second working group last call for:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis/
>
> This document is suggested to be elevated from “proposed standard”
> to "Internet standard” as describe
Hi Mario,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:51:13AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> I open a separate discussion about the usage of the id_token parameter as
> defined in the rdap-openid document.
>
> The document states in section 5.2 that the id_token MUST be passed in the
> query string.
>
> IMO, the
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:54:57AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 17/12/2021 06:59, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:51:13AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> I open a separate discussion about the usage of the id_token parameter as
>>>
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 09:19:55AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 11/01/2022 12:03, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 11:54:57AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> Il 17/12/2021 06:59, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>>>> I'm not sure
Hi Mario,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:58:16AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 17/01/2022 02:07, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 09:19:55AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> Il 11/01/2022 12:03, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>>>> But the relying party
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 01:22:04PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> I'm not saying that it is a wrong proposal but it would simply
> result in refactoring the document. We should give answer to some
> questions, such as: should the /tokens endpoint still be useful?
> which informati
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 02:41:06PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Harrison
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:09 PM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
>> Cc: mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL]
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 03:10:02PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 08:26:20AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote:
>> But it's not guaranteed that every user identifier will be
>> associated with a host that is implementing issuer discovery. For
>> exampl
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 02:43:40PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> [SAH] The best thing we can do is to explain the situation in
> Section 3.1.3.1. What's there now needs to change:
>
> OLD:
> 3.1.3.1. Provider Discovery
>
> An RDAP server/RP needs to receive an identifier from an End-User
>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:29:53AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 21/02/2022 18:25, Alessandro Vesely ha scritto:
>> On Mon 21/Feb/2022 11:34:14 +0100 Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> Il 21/02/2022 09:54, Alessandro Vesely ha scritto:
On Mon 21/Feb/2022 08:30:53 +0100 Mario Loffredo wrote:
> W
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 03:18:33PM +0200, 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://datatracker.iet
Hi Mario,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:51:15PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> thinking back to my last message, I need some clarifications before
> updating the document.
>
> Please find my comments inline.
>
> Il 18/04/2022 13:10, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> - I-D.
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 03:37:56PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 22/04/2022 06:16, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:51:15PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> Il 18/04/2022 13:10, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>>>> - Define inline
Hi Mario,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 08:17:18AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 25/04/2022 00:55, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> The structure looks fine to me, but assuming that the
>> "reverse_search_properties" field name is prefixed with
>> "reverse_sear
Hi Mario,
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:56:35AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> My opinion is that the part of the rdapConformance tag about the
> version number (e.g. _0 or _level_0) should be left out from the
> possible rule tying the tag and the related extension for the
> following reasons:
I'm
Hi James,
(Replying to the original mail, but taking into account replies to it
to date as well.)
On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 03:44:01PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> Scott and I discussed this offline, and below is a proposal for the
> RDAP Extension Registry registrations that meets the language in
Hi James,
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:59:35PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> On 5/17/22, 8:56 AM, "Tom Harrison" wrote:
>> I think this approach could work in principle, but I don't think it's
>> in accordance with the current text:
>>
>> - RFC 74
Hi James,
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:59:05AM +, Gould, James wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:12:16AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote:
>> The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix'
>> part. I'm more concerned with the confusing way in
Hi James,
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 06:36:59PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> On 5/19/22, 2:35 AM, "Tom Harrison" wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:59:05AM +, Gould, James wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:12:16AM +1000, Tom Harrison wrote:
>>>>
Hi all,
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 03:57:41PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> I know that entities mapped to EPP contacts cannot support multiple
> emails but such contacts match only a subset of the roles defined in
> RDAP so, in theory, they don't cover all the cases.
We have entities with multiple
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 01:01:37PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Harrison
>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:44 PM
>> To: Gould, James
>> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: R
Hi James,
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:25:06PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up, since I was overly focused on the
> Domain Name Registries (DNRs). Will the Regional Internet
> Registries (RIRs) redact via draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted, and
> will the Redaction by Repl
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:33:23PM +, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Harrison
>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 12:19 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
>> Cc: Gould, James ; regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: R
Hi James,
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 07:26:39PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> In reviewing the thread below, I'll summarize my thoughts below that
> goes along with my response with Approach C to Jasdip:
Thanks for this summary.
> 1. It looks like there is consensus that the existing language in
Hi Mario,
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 08:21:45PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> I'm concerned about injecting the version information into
> prefixes/identifiers as I see some drawbacks in dealing with non-breaking
> changes, which hopefully should be the majority and usually don't require to
> manag
Hi Mario,
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:41:27PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Think the matter is that even the possible backwards-compatible changes
> would result in being hardly backwards-compatible.
>
> Let te me give an example to make myself clear and move the discussion on a
> practical pers
Hi Mario,
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 09:51:21AM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 29/05/2022 06:42, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:41:27PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> Think the matter is that even the possible backwards-compatible changes
>>> w
Hi James,
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 07:49:18PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure where the term 'strict' model is coming from,
> which I assume is associated with Approach A "Tight Coupling".
That's right. See my earlier mail at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/6Xg0ViGG
Hi Scott,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:57:09AM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> In another thread focused on the extensions draft, I was asked
> "Would you like regext to revisit Reverse Search?" That prompted me
> to take another look at the draft. It currently defines five
> extension identifiers
Hi Pawel,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:29:49AM +0200, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
> The ambiguity seems to be also there because /domains path segment
> is used the same in both context of RIR and domain name registry.
> The draft puts however RIR in focus. This poses an interesting
> question - if a do
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
Hi Pawel,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 08:51:32AM +0200, kowa...@denic.de wrote:
> On 21.10.24 23:57, Tom Harrison wrote:
>> [...] In the absence of any text permitting partial implementation,
>> this text requires implementers to implement the whole document
>> ("the funct
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 07:40:39PM -0800, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-12.txt is now available. It
> is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the
> IETF.
>
>Title: RDAP RIR Search
>Aut
Hi Orie,
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 08:13:13AM -0600, Orie Steele wrote:
> Thanks for addressing my comments.
>
> I'm marking the document revised I-D needed, and awaiting your updates.
Thanks, the updates have been submitted now (along with some other
pending editorial changes). The diff is avail
Hi Orie,
Thanks for your review, much appreciated.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:15:49PM -0600, Orie wrote:
> # Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-13
> CC @OR13
>
> * line numbers:
> -
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id
Hi David,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:37:10PM +, David Dong via RT wrote:
> Just a follow-up on this; thank you.
Thanks for following up. We submitted -15 in order to address all
pending feedback, but missed a few things. We will submit -16 when
the submission tool becomes available again, a
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for your review.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 03:58:52AM -0800, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being p
Hi Russ,
Thanks for your review.
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 01:45:03PM -0800, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Ready
>
> I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the I
Hi John,
Thanks for your review.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 07:10:29PM -0800, John Levine via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: John Levine
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> For this ART area review, I looked at the document as someone who is
> reasonably
> familiar with RDAP, having written some
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your review.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 07:28:17PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Section 10.2 has a title of "Link Relations Registry" but the URL
> given is "https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/
> rdap-extensions.xhtml" -- it looks like the intent is to register
>
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 10:21:18AM -0400, James Galvin wrote:
> A virtual interim meeting is certainly an option and available. Meetings
> can also be held in person but I’m assuming you’re asking for a virtual
> meeting. Planning is different if it’s going to be a meeting in person.
>
> Let’s f
99 matches
Mail list logo
