JG, inline...
On 8/21/26 5:14 PM, Gould, James wrote: >> Consider the use case of a bis draft of the redacted extension in RFC 9537 >> that only wants to remove the use of JSON Path, which we've brought up in >> the past. In this use case the child members of "prePath", "postPath", >> "replacementPath", and "pathLang" would be removed. The bis draft could use >> opaque versioning by bumping the extension identifier from "redacted" to >> "redacted2". How would the application of the strategies in >> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions apply to this use case? With the >> "Standalone Superseders with Versioning" strategy, the bis draft simply >> removes the needed child members, bumps the extension identifier, and then >> leverages the versioning extension in the transition from "redacted" to >> "redacted2" with a transition period. > > Isn't this non-overlapping superseders in Section 5.4.3.1? > > JG-No, the successor "redacted2" extension does not "replicate all the > functionality of the predecessor" of the predecessor "redacted" extension. Now I understand. We can remove the word "all" and also add some text about removing functionality. Thanks for walking through this. This was helpful. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
