On 6/13/25 06:02, [email protected] wrote:
PK> the problem I see with the current approach is a missing definition of what is "core protocol" and what is not.
STD 95 clearly specifies "rdap_level_0" as the signal for the core protocol. And from an RFC series standpoint, those are the things that update or obsolete one of the RFCs in STD 95. Furthermore, there are contracts and compliance specifications that draw a distinction between STD 95 and extensions. Allowing any extension to be considered "core" would have significant implications on those contractual obligations. -andy, no hats _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
