+1
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
My comments are inline:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
>
> [ML] Per what is stated in RFC 9083 Section 4.1, a pure request extension
> doesn't have to be included in the rdapConformance array of the related
> response when it is used in a query because the rdapConformance
Mario,
Many thanks for this message.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 5:57 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
>
> 2) Chapter "Make it simpler"
>
> Prefer "Make it better". I mean, simplicity cannot be the only parameter used
> within IETF to evaluate a technical solution. IMO there are other parameters
> that ar
Hello Pawel,
Good observations! Please find my comments below. (Andy, please add/subtract
here if needed. :))
Thanks,
Jasdip
From:
Date: Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:51 AM
To: Jasdip Singh , "regext-cha...@ietf.org"
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" , Andy Newton
Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP-X draft a
Hi Jasdip,
Do you mean by adopting RDAP-X draft the WG shall include the
requirements of all the said drafts when it comes to extensions and
versions signalling and negotiation, or only keep the current scope and
define extension points so that the other drafts can be based on the
same method
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16.txt is now available. It is
a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions (REGEXT) WG of the IETF.
Title: Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
Response
Authors: James Gould
David Smith
The REGEXT WG has placed draft-jasdips-regext-rdap-geofeed in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Antoin Verschuren)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jasdips-regext-rdap-geofeed/
___
regext mailing list
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
RDAP RIR Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search/05/
Please indicate your support or no objection for t
