Hi Jim,Extensions draft shall be dealing with the extensibility of RDAP, even if draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning would not exist.
From this perspective for me it now strikes a right balance by clarifying potential issues, misunderstanding or misconceptions by extension authors.
draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning cannot cover for those issues as it would be an extension.
Kind Regards, Pawel On 10.12.25 13:40, Gould, James wrote:
My prior feedback athttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/-R3YfbuEUyhLIiSSJkUn3Nll9dw/ andhttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/3JU1wZKk4JrcuBSWn9xkVDOpUT4/ that the content in the sub-sections of section 5.4 as being out-of-scope for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions. Section 5.4 starts by saying that there is no explicit version beyond the extension identifiers (opaque versioning) with a reference to draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning, which is as far as draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions needs to take it. I will request again for the sub-sections of Section 5.4 to be removed from draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions and move the discussion of versioning to draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning. Thanks, -- JG
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
