Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis-00.txt

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 11:47 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-
> rfc7482bis-00.txt
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 06:27, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> > > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:06 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] FW: I-D Action:
> > > draft-hollenbeck-regext- rfc7482bis-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, at 07:35, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > > > FYI, folks. I just submitted the first version of 7482bis. I've
> > > > addressed the known errata, but I also have some clarification
> > > > suggestions queued up for discussion. I'll start a thread for each
> > > > of those shortly.
> > >
> > >
> > > See my previous email on RFC7483bis the same caveat (on the breadth
> > > of changes called for) applies here.
> >
> > The goal of the update is to only address necessary editorial
> > corrections and clarifications. No protocol changes. Some of what you
> > describe below has already come up in on-list discussion, so it will
> > be addressed. Anything that changes the protocol itself will be out of
> > scope for now. I'll take a look at everything below as I work on the
> > next version of the document.
>
> Thanks Scott for your explanation and hence sorry for my two emails.
>
> There may be a few things and nitpicks that could still be viewed as
> "corrections and clarifications" and hence be useful, but indeed some other
> points are really like protocol enhancements (based on what I see on the
> field today, trying to use RDAP servers in gTLDs right now is really a
> minefield...) and hence sadly will need to be jettisoned for now.

Let's not jettison the issues. We should capture them in a place like the WG wiki and queue them up for discussion if we ever get around to talking about RDAP 1.1 or 2.0. I'll take that on as an action as I triage the feedback I'm getting for 7482bis and 7483bis.

Scott