Hi Jasdip, Apologies for the delay in responding. My responses are below.
On 9 Jan 2026, at 4:57 pm, Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Gavin, > > From: Andy Newton <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 at 9:22 AM > To: Jorge Cano <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [regext] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-03 > (Ends 2026-01-19) > > 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. > > [JS] Andy and I were discussing this. Since RFC 2181 deprecated differing > TTLs in an RRSet, it might help to clarify this data model decision by > referring to section 5.2 of that RFC [1]. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2181#autoid-9 > [datatracker.ietf.org] Will do! -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
