Hi James, You have interspersed the draft text with your commentary in the same paragraphs, making it difficult to pull apart the draft text you are targeting from your own text.
Can you use the line numbered output from the I-D nits tool to quote the draft text: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/$DRAFT_VERSION.txt You can use the webform here if it is easier: https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits Let me see what I can pick apart... On 09-03-2026 3:47 PM, Gould, James wrote:
JG3- draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning-04 ABNF was updated in Section 3.1 to address the feedback from you, Andy Newton, Jasdip Singh, Pawel Kowalik, and Maarten Wullink. The draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type-05 language "This parameter is a whitespace-separated list of RDAP extension identifiers (as would be found in the "rdapConformance" array)." Should be updated to "This parameter is a whitespace-separated list of RDAP extension identifiers (as would be found in the "rdapConformance" array) or Extension Versioning Identifiers, as defined by [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning] ." This enables the use of both opaque and maturity versioning in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning using the “exts_list” parameter in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type. The existing language only supports opaque versioning.
My understanding of Pawel's proposal that we discussed at the hall-way meeting at IETF 124 was that maturity versioning was to have the major number in the extension identifier and there would be no need for expressing the minor because minor revisions are supposed to be backwards compatible. However, looking at versioning-04 there appears to be something complicated going on with maturity versioning. The id "maturity_ext1-2.0" (an example from versioning-04) has a super major, then a major, then a minor. Why isn't it just "maturity_ext1"? (BTW, according to the extensions draft, that should be "maturityExt1").
JG3-Section B.2 remains in the draft. How does inclusion of that section help in the clarity of this draft? I view it as the wrong place for guidance on the use of query parameters in RDAP. That is best suited for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions.
It is there to warn against the problems caused by Section 3.2.1 in versioning-04. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
