+1, I support cardinality of one.
From: regext on behalf of Jody Kolker
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:19 AM
To: Rick Wilhelm , Roger D Carney
, "regext@ietf.org"
Subject: [Ext] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward
I also support cardinality of one.
Thanks,
I agree with James and here is why...
First, at least in my operational experience, modifying a data model
is much more complex than just software upgrades.
Second, these email addresses are not only used for display in
RDAP/Whois, sometimes they are used for operational purposes (e.g., as
in
I also support cardinality of one.
Thanks,
Jody.
From: regext On Behalf Of Rick Wilhelm
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 8:26 AM
To: Roger D Carney ; regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click
Hi Gavin!
It seems to me that there is a case of use that is not being
considered, when the NS and their glues are defined as an attribute
of the domain object, without having a host object.
If we consider a create command with a domain object like the example
1.1 in RFC5731:
Agreed… +1 on cardinality of one
Thx
Rick
From: regext on behalf of Roger D Carney
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 8:10 AM
To: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward
CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust
+1 on cardinality of one
From: regext on behalf of Dmitry Belyavsky
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:03 AM
To: Gould, James
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please
Dear colleagues,
I also support the cardinality of one.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:50 PM Gould, James wrote:
> I’ve discussed the path forward for draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai with some
> working group participates and I have concern of the current path that the
> draft is taking with the support
I’ve discussed the path forward for draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai with some working
group participates and I have concern of the current path that the draft is
taking with the support for an alternate e-mail address, whether it be either
ASCII, SMTPUTF8, or either. There are system and policy
Hi all,
With thanks to Rick and Jim for their feedback, I’ve uploaded a new version of
the TTL extension draft, which incorporates their suggestions.
I’ve asked the WG chairs for a slot at IETF116 to present this draft and
request WG adoption.
Feedback and advice gratefully appreciated!
G.
