On the 3rd paragraph in Section 1:
> This document is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
> [RFC5730] (EPP)
> Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values [RFC9803], but registry operators
> do not
> need to implement that extension in their EPP server in order to implement
> this RDAP extension.
It may be worth noting that the data model intentionally does not support a per
record TTL.
-andy, as an individual
On 1/7/26 6:14 PM, Andy Newton wrote:
> Why do we have a "values" object? Are we thinking there will be a "remarks"
> DNS RR at some point? What about removing it:
>
> {
> "objectClassName": "nameserver",
> "ldhName": "ns1.domain.example",
> "ttl0_data": {
> "A": 86400,
> "AAAA": 86400,
> "remarks": [
> {
> "description": [
> "The .example registry does not permit TTL ",
> "values for nameservers to be changed."
> ]
> }
> ]
> }
> }
>
> Also, do we need to explicitly state that the DNS RRs are uppercase? If we
> did, that would prevent any worry about a "REMARKS" DNS RR.
>
> -andy
>
> On 1/5/26 10:52 AM, Jorge Cano via Datatracker wrote:
>> This message starts a WG Last Call for:
>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-03
>>
>> This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-01-19
>>
>> Abstract:
>> This document describes an extension to the Registration Data Access
>> Protocol ([RFC9083]) which allows the Time-To-Live (TTL) values for
>> relevant DNS record types to be included in RDAP responses.
>>
>> About this draft
>>
>> This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
>>
>> The source for this draft, and an issue tracker, may can be found at
>> https://github.com/gbxyz/rdap-ttl-extension.
>>
>> File can be retrieved from:
>>
>> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
>> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping
>> [email protected] in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestions to
>> resolve them are highly appreciated.
>>
>> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
>> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1].
>> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
>> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
>> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
>> found at [3].
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension/
>>
>> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-03
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-03
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
