Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

t; , Jasdip Singh , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" , "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 Thanks everyone that provided their preference for the options on the use of redaction by placeholder text. The following is a

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

> > > From: Jasdip Singh > Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 at 9:02 AM > To: "Gould, James" , Jody Kolker , "kowa...@denic.de" , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" > Cc: "regext@ietf.org"

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

From: Jasdip Singh > Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 at 9:02 AM > To: "Gould, James" , Jody Kolker , "kowa...@denic.de" , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" > Cc: "regext@ietf.org" > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] R

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

> Fellow Engineer > jgo...@verisign.com > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com > > > > From: Jasdip Singh > Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 at 9:02 AM > To: "Gould, James" , Jody Kolker > , "kowa...@denic.d

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> *From: *Jasdip Singh *Date: *Friday, December 9, 2022 at 9:02 AM *To: *"Gould, James" , Jody Kolker , "kowa...@denic.de" , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" *Cc: *"regext@ietf.org" *Subject: *[

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

gh Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 at 9:02 AM To: "Gould, James" , Jody Kolker , "kowa...@denic.de" , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 Resent-

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

..@godaddy.com" , "kowa...@denic.de" , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 Jody, I thought adding the transition period to the MUST NOT would provide for some fl

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Jody Kolker Date: Friday, December 2, 2022 at 2:27 PM To: Pawel Kowalik , James Gould , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

returned in the responses. However, I can live with Option #3 where the RFC acknowledges that placeholder text has been used in the past. Thanks, Jody Kolker. From: Pawel Kowalik Sent: Friday, November 25, 2022 1:50 AM To: Gould, James ; draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org Cc: regext@ietf.

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

gext@ietf.org" *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 Hi James, My comments below. Am 23.11.22 um 14:17 schrieb Gould, James: [...] JG3 – What triggered the creation of this extension was a proposal to use placeholder text for redaction, which

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:23 AM To: James Gould , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 Hi James, My comments below. Am 23.11.22 um 14:17 schrieb Gould, Jam

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Hi James, My comments below. Am 23.11.22 um 14:17 schrieb Gould, James: [...] JG3 – What triggered the creation of this extension was a proposal to use placeholder text for redaction, which in my opinion is an anti-pattern that needs to be directly addressed.  I believe that you see the

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

, 2022 at 5:58 AM To: James Gould , "draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redac...@ietf.org" Cc: "regext@ietf.org" Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 Hi James, My comments also inline. Am 22.11.22 um 14:18 schrieb Gould, James: [...] [P

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Hi James, My comments also inline. Am 22.11.22 um 14:18 schrieb Gould, James: [...] [PK] Looking at the Abstract and the Introduction of the draft it reads "This document describes an RDAP extension for explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields, using JSONPath as the default

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Pawel, Thanks again for your feedback. You'll find my responses to your feedback embedded below with "JG2 -". -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 11/16/22, 12:14 PM,

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Hi James, See my feedback below. Am 15.11.22 um 21:15 schrieb Gould, James: [...] JG - The use of placeholder values for redaction is prohibited based on the second normative sentence. The normative language is needed to implement the redaction defined by the RDAP extension. I agree that

Re: [regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Pawel, Thank you for the detailed review. I provide responses to your feedback embedded below. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com On 11/14/22, 12:18 PM, "Pawel Kowalik"

[regext] Review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09

Hi, As an action item after IETF 115 I reviewed draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-09 before WG LC and have the following questions / remarks: Section 3, first paragraph: > Redaction in RDAP can be handled in multiple ways.  The use of > placeholder text for the values of the RDAP fields,