Il 16/08/2022 16:30, James Galvin ha scritto:
This CONSENSUS CALL is now closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
There have been 9 expressions of support and no objections so the proposal is
accepted.
There are now two next steps, which the Chairs believe can happen in parallel.
1.
I've submitted the errata reports.
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:31 AM
> To: REGEXT WG
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] CONSENSUS CALL: discussion regarding
> rdapConformance
>
> C
This CONSENSUS CALL is now closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
There have been 9 expressions of support and no objections so the proposal is
accepted.
There are now two next steps, which the Chairs believe can happen in parallel.
1. Scott Hollenbeck had volunteered during the IETF
Many thanks to all those who have responded in favor of this proposal. We have
not seen any objections at this time.
We have support from 9 people: Jim Gould, Marc Blanchet, Jasdip Singh, Scott
Hollenbeck, Andrew Newton, Mario Loffredo, Tom Harrison, Rick Wilhelm, Pawel
Kowalik.
Comments are
+1
Kind regards
Pawel Kowalik
> Am 01.08.2022 um 15:49 schrieb James Galvin :
>
> As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list
> regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a significant topic of
> discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 09:49:19AM -0400, James Galvin wrote:
> As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the
> mailing list regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a
> significant topic of discussion at the REGEXT meeting during
> IETF114.
>
> Three options were prop
Speaking personally, I would agree.
Jim
On 2 Aug 2022, at 11:51, Gould, James wrote:
> Jim,
>
> For #1, I just want to ensure that " the RDAP protocol and RDAP Extensions
> Registry do not directly support versioning of extensions" does not prohibit
> the registration of versioned profile ext
Jim,
For #1, I just want to ensure that " the RDAP protocol and RDAP Extensions
Registry do not directly support versioning of extensions" does not prohibit
the registration of versioned profile extension identifiers, since
"icann_rdap_response_profile_1" and "
icann_rdap_technical_implementat
On 2 Aug 2022, at 8:16, Gould, James wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I support the chair's proposal with two comments that I communicated at the
> REGEXT meeting during IETF114:
>
> 1. Registration of versioned policy (profile) identifiers will continue to be
> allowed in the RDAP Extensions Registry, such
I support this proposal and agree with James that in the near future we
should address versioning in RDAP.
Mario
Il 01/08/2022 15:49, James Galvin ha scritto:
As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list
regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a sig
Jim,
I support the chair's proposal with two comments that I communicated at the
REGEXT meeting during IETF114:
1. Registration of versioned policy (profile) identifiers will continue to be
allowed in the RDAP Extensions Registry, such as
"icann_rdap_response_profile_0" and "
icann_rdap_tech
I hum to this tune!
-andy
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:22 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
>
> I support this proposal.
>
> Scott
>
> > On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:49 AM, James Galvin wrote:
> >
> > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> > links or open attachments unles
I support this proposal.
Scott
> On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:49 AM, James Galvin wrote:
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
> As everyone knows there has been q
+1
Thanks,
Jasdip
On 8/1/22, 9:49 AM, "regext on behalf of James Galvin"
wrote:
As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list
regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a significant topic of
discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114.
T
> Le 1 août 2022 à 09:49, James Galvin a écrit :
>
> As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list
> regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a significant topic of
> discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114.
>
> Three options were proposed on
As everyone knows there has been quite some discussion on the mailing list
regarding how to implement rdapConformance. This was a significant topic of
discussion at the REGEXT meeting during IETF114.
Three options were proposed on the mailing list and unfortunately the Chairs do
not believe th
16 matches
Mail list logo
