> -Original Message-
> From: Gould, James
> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:41 AM
> To: jasd...@arin.net; Hollenbeck, Scott ;
> mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; gal...@elistx.com; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-
> rfc7482bis
>
> >> The
>> The phrase 'registry-unique identifier' connotes a unique lookup key for
>> entities, irrespective of their type. It puts the onus on a registry to
>> ensure so. Does that not suffice?
There are cases where the entity lookup key is not unique, since the RDAP
entity object can support
Hi.
Section 5.1 of 7483bis (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-01#section-5.1 )
defines handle as:
handle -- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of the entity
The phrase 'registry-unique identifier' connotes a unique lookup key for
entities,
Hi. I am fine with this update. Thanks for highlighting and clarifying it,
James and Mario.
Jasdip
From: regext on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott"
Date: Monday, October 5, 2020 at 8:53 AM
To: "mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it" ,
"gal...@elistx.com" , "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST
Scott,
>> I'm still not comfortable with this. If we suggest that the server MUST or
>> SHOULD do something to define a scheme, we leave open the issue of how a
>> client discovers that scheme - and if we add a processing step to discover
>> the scheme, we've changed the protocol from the
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 3:18 AM
> To: James Galvin ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis
>
>
> Il 02/10/2020 22:15, James Galvin ha scritto:
> > The WGLC for
Hi all,
I have a couple of comments about this document:
1) Don't understand which maintenance notifications should be returned
by an info command including the element. I mean, only
those about both ongoing and future events or also about past events? In
the latter case, could it be
+1
From: regext on behalf of Tobias Sattler
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:15 AM
To: James Galvin
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-03
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
+1
> On 2.
+1
From: regext on behalf of Tobias Sattler
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:09 AM
To: James Galvin
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer-03
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
+1
>
+1
From: regext on behalf of Tobias Sattler
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:23 AM
To: James Galvin
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance-03
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
+1
>
+1
> On 2. Oct 2020, at 22:57, James Galvin wrote:
>
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission
> to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance/
>
> This WG last
+1
> On 2. Oct 2020, at 22:52, James Galvin wrote:
>
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission
> to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces/
>
> This WG last call
+1
> On 2. Oct 2020, at 22:55, James Galvin wrote:
>
> The following working group document is believed to be ready for submission
> to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer/
>
> This WG last
13 matches
Mail list logo
