On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 13:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck wrote:
> we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
> removing v6 addresses.
[..]
> What should be the correct behave in such situations ?
RFC 5952
A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
August 2010
Hello,
As you may be aware, ICANN discussed with WP29 on issues related to GDPR and
whois.
Among the set of documents exchanged there is this timeline:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-timeline-implement-action-plan-20apr18-en.pdf
Besides the time frame goals exposed that I let y
Hello,
On 26/04/2018 13:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
> removing v6 addresses.
>
> I think its not clearly defined that host address should be normalized
> for comparison.
>
> In our case a host info retur
Hi Rubens,
IPs are only required for GLUE host objects. For non-GLUE host objects
it's okay to have no IPs at all (and possible IPs are prohibited for
non-GLUE by the EPP server). GLUE hosts without IPs make no sense. This
should result in an error on the EPP server.
A common case for removing an
While my experience is more with host attributes registries, I wonder if
removing the single address of a host object would be forbidden because that is
actually leaving the object with no content at all.
Does the same happen if the object already had a v4 and a v6 address, and you
then remove
Hi All,
we found out that different registries have a strange behave while
removing v6 addresses.
I think its not clearly defined that host address should be normalized
for comparison.
In our case a host info return:
2001:4b3:624:1::b051
An Update is done with following:
2001:4b3:62
