I hum to this tune! -andy
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:22 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support this proposal. > > Scott > > > On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:49 AM, James Galvin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > > content is safe. > > > > As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list > > regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a significant topic > > of discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114. > > > > Three options were proposed on the mailing list and unfortunately the > > Chairs do not believe there was a consensus on the mailing list as to how > > to proceed. So, the Chairs developed a proposal for how to proceed and > > presented that at the IETF114 meeting. > > > > Since all decision must be made on the mailing list, the purpose of this > > message is to state the proposal and ask for support or objections, similar > > to how we handle WGLC for documents. Please indicate your support by > > replying to this message with a “+1” or explaining any objection you have. > > > > This CONSENSUS CALL will close in two weeks on 15 August 2022 at close of > > business everywhere. > > > > This proposal had consensus during the IETF114 meeting and is summarized as > > follows. > > > > 1. Given that both RFC7480 and RFC9083 are Internet Standards, the bar for > > changes is quite high. > > > > 2. There is a generally accepted consensus for how rdapConformance is to be > > used and it is widely deployed today. > > > > 3. Although any one of the three options could be a reasonable choice, none > > of them has a broad consensus sufficient to justify changing the Standard. > > > > 4. The proposal has two parts as follows: > > > > A. Accept that the RDAP protocol and RDAP Extensions Registry do not > > directly support versioning of extensions and that both support unique > > extension identifiers. > > > > B. Submit Errata to the appropriate RFC in STD95 to harmonize the example > > usage of the extension identifiers “lunarNIC” and “lunarNIC_level_0” to > > improve clarity on the uniqueness of identifiers. > > > > For additional details working group members are referred to the slides > > used by the Chairs during the discussion and recording of the meeting: > > > > SLIDES: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1aCpeSm94HqhfvcIRM8JwDsYpoNpGQPZXebtvgIwTKPxrxX_C8ELtpayH-mxerPEHVDStIGXS-OM4O55Sfk-L_zQURmwlcioa3N7W4rdVBPCt3iVd90mncTyiaIw6cmq5EoYGAmyrW3r0fR2eeV-bZVb-Q_tb0XdpWcS83BJC-0ZAT_daMoOYGcGFzMJMf1keEi6iu-ES3B6eC2TiJ6OQzIfS7vT0fE_oOu4UHqbijSaMl5AtixLTMKkAD_Q_IIMB/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fslides-114-regext-rdap-extension-identifier-and-rdapconformance%2F > > > > RECORDING: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xbiDRYKfH4s5US609nivRu0I9hM6X7gjZ-c4wcWP8PDMvj9dOdfLJBaPycKhcIA800Qy93ETzhOeUQ7zmzvkSeYgvh1xIjb5DKgenVQzRIRBG45HvxSR_HGERLpgf4ZkG3duB4SjB1cmizBLSWAPHJ7qiTkaDpEloSx18ZnI814esYwI78c4j3Ohuw5ILw-B4ukFJTfXepa8WY9MRhwQ73_G9OY6xDHKxmjTa-f87a4vSnDIexFlg2pVFD93qf_3/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.meetecho.com%2Fietf114%2Frecordings%23REGEXT > > > > Thanks, > > > > Antoin and Jim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > regext mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_xw9BHBh8tkeWYu0sJroj5DqeS5cHijHv72FakFGUYJznwxhvULurGN6K82w0DhKdkUaVN7JXr2gCy15mg1lb-YxPQOHHAtOBU8yPT4zArSMTxeLbyVyAswsKVO8aBRrZPthD-u3LNeLMMl0VmkFi1Y5BIgJBH-SEg_kKzqHxTYvo7FICMiYDple8_0DsSwHm_pj3iTOzqFxMg9LRCEXt3s7tKomL0gFIoQtXeN5iwcI_BTpiEx0yGpiMby0-ozW/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
