James, Inline...
On 12/10/25 11:41 AM, Gould, James wrote: > Section 5.4.4 "Evolving Extensions without Signaling Changes" > > This section is pretty much saying that draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning MUST > NOT be implemented by combining paragraph 1 and the last paragraph, which is > something that I don't support. The extension signaling of the > rdapComformance is coarse grained and doesn't contain any explicit version, > as stated in Section 5.4. Implementing a more advanced form of versioning > (e.g., semantic) with signaling is supported in > draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning that can be leveraged by an extension. The > extension developer can decide to use opaque versioning or semantic > versioning based on draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning. It's not the role of > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions to disallow implementing a more advanced > form of versioning via draft-ietf-reget-rdap-versioning. Quite the opposite. It says, or atleast intends to say, that an extension MUST NOT be evolved without a signaling mechanism such as rdap-versioning. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
