From: regext On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:51 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; a...@hxr.us
Cc: i...@antoin.nl; mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
Caution: This email originated
* “ipSearchResults” for the "ipSearchResults" member.
* “ips” and “rirSearch1“ for the construction of the “href” values in the
“links” member of an IP network object for link relations.
IMO, this presently points to Option 2 from the choices Mario posed for the WG.
Per the “const
20, 2024 12:23 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org ;
> mario.loffredo=40iit.cnr...@dmarc.ietf.org ;
> regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-
> search
>
> Caution: This email originated from
gext On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 10:42 AM
> To: Mario Loffredo
> Cc: regext
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
>
>
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do no
cluded. If
that’s not clear, what am I missing?
Scott
From: regext On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 10:42 AM
To: Mario Loffredo
Cc: regext
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
Caution: This email originated from o
Hi Antoin,
please find my comments below.
Il 19/02/2024 16:41, Antoin Verschuren ha scritto:
So, if I understand this correctly, the chairs asked the document
shepherd to declare that there were no substantial changes made during
WGLC between versions 05 and 07 and all raised issues were addre
So, if I understand this correctly, the chairs asked the document shepherd to
declare that there were no substantial changes made during WGLC between
versions 05 and 07 and all raised issues were addressed.
The answer below I interpret as: We would like the permission from the WG to
not only su
Hi Antoin,
after a private discussion between James, Tom, Jasdip and me, we agreed
on the following:
1) Some minor edits that don't substantially change the draft but
clarify the meaning of some sentences will be done in next version
2) We would like the WG members express their own opinio
Hi All,
After some prolonged discussion, the chairs will now close this working group
last call that should have ended 11 December 2023.
We have had comments and approval during WGLC from 4 working group participants
and the document shepherd and no objections.
That has lead to 2 new versions of
do=40iit.cnr...@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:40iit.cnr...@dmarc.ietf.org> <mailto:mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>>;
> ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>
> mailto:i...@antoin.nl>>; regext@ietf.org
> <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
> Subje
@apnic.net
> Cc: mario.loffredo=40iit.cnr...@dmarc.ietf.org ;
> ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-
> search
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> li
o <mailto:40iit.cnr...@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Antoin
> Verschuren <mailto:40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>>; regext <mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-
> search
>
> Caution: This email originated from outsi
> Cc: Mario Loffredo ; Antoin
> Verschuren ; regext
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-
> search
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the
Speaking as your Chairs:
Mario brings up an interesting question for which the Chairs need to hear some
other opinions.
On the one hand, there does seem to be some ambiguity regarding the proper use
of the rdapConformance array. If this is a concern, then the Chairs believe
that the WG needs
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 26/01/2024 04:29, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:21:42AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>>> 2) Per what is stated in section 4.1 0f RFC9083, the rdapConformance
>>> array in the examples Section 4
Hi James,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 01:21:05PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> Thanks for making the drafts updates. I will do a detailed review
> of the updated draft.
>
> For the "..." convention, we had to explicitly define it in RFC 8334
> with " The use of "..." is used as shorthand for elemen
Thanks Tom. Looks good to me.
-andy
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:28 PM Tom Harrison wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:55:21PM -0500, Andy Newton wrote:
> > 1. The elidation in figure 2 (section 3.4) should be pointed out. At
> > first I mistook the hr
Tom,
Thanks for making the drafts updates. I will do a detailed review of the
updated draft.
For the "..." convention, we had to explicitly define it in RFC 8334 with " The
use of "..." is used as shorthand for elements defined outside this document.".
I believe that was based on feedback
Hi Tom,
please find my comment below.
Il 26/01/2024 04:29, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
Hi Mario,
Thanks for your feedback.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:21:42AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
+1
Have just two further notes:
1) Think it would be good to add normative language about partial
matching
Hi James,
Thanks for your feedback. Comments on non-nits inline:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 08:21:57PM +, Gould, James wrote:
> I did my review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-05, and below
> is my primarily editorial feedback:
>
> 1. Section 1.1 “Requirements Language”
> * Reco
Hi Mario,
Thanks for your feedback.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:21:42AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> +1
>
> Have just two further notes:
>
> 1) Think it would be good to add normative language about partial
> matching referencing Section 4.1 of RFC 9082 .
Thanks, this has been added.
> 2) Pe
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your feedback.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:55:21PM -0500, Andy Newton wrote:
> 1. The elidation in figure 2 (section 3.4) should be pointed out. At
> first I mistook the hrefs as some sort of relative URLs.
These have been updated to use concrete URLs now.
> 2. It would be he
Antoin,
I did my review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-05, and below is my
primarily editorial feedback:
1. Section 1.1 “Requirements Language”
* Recommend make this Section 2 “Conventions Used in This Document” for
consistency with the RDAP RFCs. I also recommend defining
Reminder,
This WGLC will end tonight. So far we only had 3 notifications of support. (And
a comment from the document shepherd)
Please indicate your support if you didn’t already do so for us to judge
consensus.
Regards,
Your co-chairs Jim and Antoin
> Op 27 nov. 2023, om 15:51 heeft Antoin
This is a great draft, and I'm glad that this work is going forward. I
do have a few comments.
1. The elidation in figure 2 (section 3.4) should be pointed out. At
first I mistook the hrefs as some sort of relative URLs.
2. It would be helpful if section 4 noted that the object instances
returned
+1
Have just two further notes:
1) Think it would be good to add normative language about partial
matching referencing Section 4.1 of RFC 9082 .
2) Per what is stated in section 4.1 0f RFC9083, the rdapConformance
array in the examples Section 4 should include only the extensions used
in th
+1
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of Antoin Verschuren
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 9:51 AM
> To: regext
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WG LAST CALL draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the
+1
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready for
submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed Standard:
RDAP RIR Search
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search/05/
Please indicate your support or no objection for t
29 matches
Mail list logo
