Dear Andy and Scott (cc: regext WG),
As the designated experts for the RDAP Extensions registry, can you review the
proposed registration in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14 for us? Please see:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/
The due date is September 14th.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:05 PM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
>
> AFAIU, the definition of a standard JSON data description language has been a
> controversial matter for long. To my knowledge, the only DDL published as
> RFC that could work is CDDL [RFC8610]. It was primarily created for CBOR but
>
Hi Scott,
as just posted by Gavin, have already worked on a JSON Schema for RDAP
and used it to build a kind of crawler which was able to validate the
RDAP responses against RFC7483.
Obviously, have no problem to collaborate with everyone is willing to
define a JSON Schema for RDAP but
Hi there,
Further to Scott’s email, some time ago Mario and Maurizio from .IT created
some schemas which I pinched and put in this Git repository:
https://github.com/gbxyz/rdap-json-schemas
These are based on RFC 7483, but with a bit of work could be updated and form
the basis of a draft.
G.
There is no RFC that I can find that describes JSON Schema. That’s not
surprising, since when I did some reading on the web site described below I
found references to multiple expired I-Ds:
https://json-schema.org/specification.html
The lack of a formal specification certainly contributed
Hi all,
We have posted an update to Simple Contact. Here are the summary of the changes:
* removed structured names
* removed structured addresses
* fixed ISO-3166-2 usage
* removed the "masked" property
* updated the example
* added a section on linking to vcard / jcard / jscontact
Overall,
Hi all,
Tom, Jasdip and I have put together a new version of the draft based
on feedback from the list and IETF 117.
In summary, the changes are:
* status changes from an informational to an update
* reserves two consecutive underscores for IETF definition at later
time (such as in a versioning
