Hi Andy,
thanks for your reply.
Again my comments inline.
Il 11/12/2023 22:41, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:57 AM Mario Loffredo wrote:
[ML] I would prefer "only express the items which are more likely used in
RDAP". After all, SimpleContact is not an RFC and, as
+1
Am 12.12.23 um 12:14 schrieb Jasdip Singh:
+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
+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 draft adoption
Agreed.
Mario
Il 11/12/2023
Hi Andy,
please find my comments inline.
Il 07/12/2023 21:05, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:39 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
[ML] Since it talks about "content negotiation", rdap-x regards clients
signaling their preferences about response extensions or, at most,
extensions
Agreed.
Mario
Il 11/12/2023 15:24, Gould, James ha scritto:
Jim and Antoin,
I support having an interim meeting to discuss. I see distinct
problems being solved by the three drafts
draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning,
draft-newton-regext-rdap-extensions, and
