Hello Mario, Scott,
Please find my feedback on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/ below:
1. Agree with the overall usefulness of this draft to cover the
missing/needed search scenarios.
2. Not sure if we need to specifically mention in the draft but
Hi all,
if I understood well the rdapConformance content in the help response
should be different from that included in the other responses. Right?
I misunderstood Scott's proposal as a mean by which a server could
inform a client about the supported features any time regardless the
response
Agree with Patrick's points about rdapConformance in the help response
informing about all capabilities and rdapConformance being more specific for a
particular query response.
Jasdip
On 7/31/20, 12:29 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek"
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 11:21, Holl
Hello Mario,
Please find my comment below.
Jasdip
On 7/31/20, 12:21 PM, "Mario Loffredo" wrote:
Il 31/07/2020 16:35, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
> IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the
phrase "specifications used in the construction of the response." It
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 11:21, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Note "supported extensions". This is why I'm saying that we need to
> register all extensions with IANA
I agree.
> and include them in the
> rdapConformance data structure even if they don't describe a response
> extension.
I agree,
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 11:51 AM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
> rdap-reverse-search
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 10:35, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>
> > Th
Hi Jasdip,
Il 31/07/2020 16:35, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the phrase
"specifications used in the construction of the response." It is about what
specifications were used for the returned response. No?
In my opinion, the sente
In preparation for the request for WGLC,
draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer was updated with the following
changes. The draft is now ready for WGLC.
1. Updated the XML namespace to
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:secure-authinfo-transfer-1.0, which removed bcp from
the namespace and bum
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the
IETF.
Title : Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Secure
Authorization Information for Transfer
Authors
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 10:35, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> The server might inlcude in rdapConformance either the hints to all the
> supported features or the only hints to the features allowed to the
> consumer.
>
> This also applies to the help response. Definitively, it's a matter of
> server
Hi Patrick,
Il 31/07/2020 16:33, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 08:02, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Furthermore, my opinion is that Section 4.1 of RFC7483bis should be
updated to treat this use case. I mean, a server should signal in
rdapConformance not only the extensions used in
In preparation for the request for WGLC, draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
was updated with the following changes. The draft is now ready for WGLC.
1. Filled in the acknowledgements section.
2. Changed the reference from RFC 5730 to RFC 5731 for the transfer example
in section 3.1
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the
IETF.
Title : Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
Namespaces
Authors : James Gould
Hi George,
thanks for your feedback.
Il 31/07/2020 15:08, George Michaelson ha scritto:
My understanding of the sense of the room, is that it is beholden on
the numbers space to construct words for Security Considerations which
address the _problem statement_ inherent in privacy and security, N
IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the phrase
"specifications used in the construction of the response." It is about what
specifications were used for the returned response. No?
Jasdip
On 7/31/20, 10:28 AM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo"
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 08:02, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Furthermore, my opinion is that Section 4.1 of RFC7483bis should be
> updated to treat this use case. I mean, a server should signal in
> rdapConformance not only the extensions used in building the response
> but all the supported features
Il 31/07/2020 16:10, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
-Original Message-
From: Mario Loffredo
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-reverse-search
Hi Scott,
Il 31/07/202
> -Original Message-
> From: Mario Loffredo
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:49 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
> rdap-reverse-search
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Il 31/07/2020 15:21, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto
Hi Scott,
Il 31/07/2020 15:21, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
-Original Message-
From: Mario Loffredo
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:03 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-reverse-search
Hi Scott,
tha
> -Original Message-
> From: Mario Loffredo
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:03 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
> rdap-reverse-search
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> thanks a lot for your feddback.
>
> Please find m
My understanding of the sense of the room, is that it is beholden on
the numbers space to construct words for Security Considerations which
address the _problem statement_ inherent in privacy and security, Not
to specify fixes, but to document the issues and the sense Jim Reid
brought into the room
Hi Scott,
thanks a lot for your feddback.
Please find my comments to your feedback below.
Il 31/07/2020 14:29, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search currently states that "This document has no
actions for IANA". I believe that's primarily because there's nothing
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search currently states that "This document has
no actions for IANA". I believe that's primarily because there's nothing new
or different being returned in the search results, which is where RDAP servers
describe the features they support. There is, however, a cas
23 matches
Mail list logo
