Hi All, I strongly support converging on a single versioning model across all three drafts, and I believe the inconsistencies in Section 5.4 make it clear that we are not there yet. Resolving this now will avoid interoperability issues later and provide a clearer foundation for implementations. Can we concentrate on this issue and hopefully resolve within a few weeks? Thanks, Jody
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. ________________________________ From: Mario Loffredo <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 3:10 AM To: Andy Newton <[email protected]>; Gould, James <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-13.txt 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 ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd 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: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!tC_EY06Vd6g5PyN_VNrvZ9KXRU1OeMwOqIzUNRX3XmtaxbBd0skS54m43XoyTG3UacJnjWlkar7lETZVxhH8R9gmek2I4Hiy$ _______________________________________________ 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]
