> -----Original Message----- > From: regext <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek > Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext- > rfc7482bis-02.txt > > Hello Scott, > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 10:45, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > This version of the document completes the updates for all known > > clarifications and corrections. We may still want to add > > implementation status information, so if you're an RDAP client > > implementor and you'd like to help move this along your input would be > greatly appreciated. > > I was under the impression, but I may be wrong, that "bis" documents > should/can have a section clearly outlining the differences they bring from > the original RFC they are a bis on, so that an implementer can see > immediately which area have changes. Is this not useful there or not > relevant? Or will that happen maybe later?
There's a log at the end of the document. All of the changes have been described on the errata page and/or in email sent to this mailing list. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5621 I *could* spell out each change in detail in the document itself, but as a lazy editor I wanted to take a "less work" approach first, especially until we get a sense of reactions to the changes. If folks want to see a detailed OLD vs. NEW comparison, I'll add it. > As for implementations, I guess I could add data about the RDAP client one > from work, (and hence many deployment experiences similar to what is > outlined in > draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings) > as I have not being able yet to release anything for my own free one under > free time. > But not sure it would add value to the document. We can discuss that > separately. Anything you're willing to contribute would be welcomed. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
