Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

Andy, You claim that there is an issue with redirection and query parameters. A client is not required to use the redirection service or a redirection at all and can directly query the target servers, so I view this as a special case that you say is best solved with RDAP-X. What I'm

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 11:19 AM Gould, James wrote: > > How about making the RDAP-X hedgehog broader into a super hedgehog by solving > the more general query parameter issue with redirection services? You have understated the problem. The issue is not with redirection services but with

Re: [regext] I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023, at 10:56, Jacques Latour wrote: > draft-latour-pre-registration-00 - EPP Pre-Registration Verification > (ietf.org) > Have a look maybe at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-validate-04

Re: [regext] [EXT] Re: I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

Thanks Scott, will update as per suggestion  CLASSIFICATION:CONFIDENTIAL From: regext On Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott Sent: November 15, 2023 11:36 AM To: Jacques.Latour=40cira...@dmarc.ietf.org; regext@ietf.org Cc: Don Slaunwhite ; t...@internetnz.net.nz Subject: [EXT] Re: [regext] I-D

Re: [regext] I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

Thanks for this, Jack. After a quick glance, I noticed that you're using an unusual method to define the extension. Can I suggest that you take a look at RFC 3735 for guidance on the community-agreed upon methods for extending EPP? Here's one specific example: Section 6.1.4 of your draft

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

Jasdip, It doesn’t look like you’re solving the generic “content negotiation using ephemeral query parameters” with RDAP-X, but only looking to address extension signaling that is a new feature and that overlaps with the approach being taken in draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning. As posted

[regext] I-D draft-latour-pre-registration

Hi all, At the ICANN78 meeting and other venues, there were quite a lot of discussion on AI/ML abuse detection related discussions and presentations. * Example: https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann78/de/4%20%2020231023-TechDay-AI%20at%20EURid.pdf But this is after the fact, after a

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 parameters are considered part of the

Re: [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: split draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact

Mario (and JG), On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 5:17 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: > > [ML] About preserving query parameters in HTTP redirection, my opinion > is that it depends on each application protocol built over HTTP. > > There are a ton of protocols on the web preserving query parameters in >

Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft adoption

Jasdip, You state, “Since query parameters are considered part of the identifier for a resource”, which seems to discount the use of the query parameter as a client option or a preference. In RDAP, the query parameter is used as an option or preference. A statement was made that RFC 3986

Re: [regext] ACTION REQUESTED: split draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact

Hi Andy, please find my comments below. Il 14/11/2023 14:38, Andrew Newton ha scritto: On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 2:53 AM Mario Loffredo wrote: The technical problems with the signaling have been discussed at length on this mailing list. A better and more generic solution has been proposed in