Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-19.txt

Hello Mario, Please find below my comments on this draft: - Title: Would it be better to re-title the doc as simply "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse Search" since we tend to mention it in discussions as "reverse search" and not "reverse search capabilities"? - Section 3: Typo

Re: [regext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-regext-brown-epp-ttl-04.txt

Hi Hugo, I’ll be honest and admit that I hadn’t considered servers that use the host attribute model, so I appreciate your feedback. My (probably quite prejudiced) view is that if an EPP server uses the host attribute model, then a TTL value set for a domain should also apply to in-bailiwick

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

Thanks for responding to the options. All 11 responses, including my preference, are in support for the Cardinality of One Option. Dmitry and I will work to roll back draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai to the approach in draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-16 and to incorporate the additional feedback

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai Path Forward

I support Jim’s proposal – the “cardinality of two” option is unnecessarily complex and would require more work to implement on client and server side for little benefit. G. On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:50 AM, Gould, James jgo...@verisign.com wrote: I’ve