Hi Andy,
please find my comments embedded below.
Il 18/06/2026 14:44, Andy Newton ha scritto:
Hi Mario and James,
Any constructive and concrete discussion of the draft text is welcome. When
doing so, please clearly quote the draft text and suggested changes. Using OLD
and NEW text blocks is a common way for doing this in the IETF. You may also
use the IDNITS tool to grab line numbers, which is very helpful. Alternatively,
you can submit a PR in GitHub.
That said, the issue you note below is NOT in the extensions draft.
[ML] I just reported an inconsistency between two of your documents that
also has implications for the versioning draft.
I believe this issue needs to be resolved now:
- either by making rdap-x-media-type compatible with what is stated in
rdap-extensions
- or by removing the inconsistency from rdap-extensions.
AFAIU, rdap-extensions, rdap-x-media-type, and rdap-versioning needed to
be harmonized in order to be moved to the WGLC .
Finally, it very unfair to the author team and the working group for you to
hold up this document based on your versioning draft. Since adoption, the
versioning draft has radically changed, moving from semantic versioning to
maturity versioning to point versioning and now a new theory called embedded
versioning. It is a meandering, moving target with a lot of complexity. So that
this does not spiral further, it would be best if the chairs stepped in now.
[ML] You may have noticed that rdap-jscontact includes a normative
reference to rdap-x-media-type, which in turn includes a normative
reference to rdap-extensions.
Furthermore, I have always said, and just confirmed to the Chairs, that
moving rdap-jscontact to the WGLC should be contingent on moving of all
three of the aforementioned documents to the WGLC.
So, what would be my interest in blocking a document of mine that has
been under evaluation for six years?!
My only interest is to achieve full compatibility of the versioning
extension with the other documents (if any) so that rdap-jscontact can
also be subsequently moved to the WGLC.
There is nothing unfair with doing so.
Best,
Mario
-andy
On 6/18/26 5:07 AM, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Il 17/06/2026 19:22, Gould, James ha scritto:
Andy,
I'll do a fresh review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-13 and provide
feedback. I don't believe draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions is ready for WGLC
until the versioning topic is fully addressed.
Thanks,
+1
I believe complete convergence between rdap-extensions,
rdap-x-media-type, and rdap-versioning is desirable.
I'd like to point out the inconsistency that seems most glaring to me.
Section 5.4 of rdap-extensions considers the case where an extension
might use a versioning method like that described by rdap-versioning.
But section 2 of rdap-x-media-type requires that the ext_list parameter
can only include extension identifiers.
This not only seems to me a clear inconsistence between the two
documents but eliminates the possibility that the versioning parameter
could be removed in order to make clients use only exts_list to signal
the desired extensions.
Best,
Mario
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
Address: Via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
