Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the author and the WG for their work on this document. I have a few comments and suggestions to offer. 1) Section 4.2 says "As a result, RDAP clients which use these frameworks may SHOULD explicitly carve out the "values" property of "ttl0_data" elements." ... I am guessing this is just a "SHOULD" and not a "may SHOULD" ? 2) RFC9499 perhaps needs to be a normative reference since it describes the TTL term that is used in the context of this document? I don't know enough of the provenance of DNS documents and terminologies and hence providing as a comment for the authors/WG and others to consider. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
