Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis-02.txt

"Patrick Mevzek" <> Thu, 06 February 2020 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783EB12006B for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:38:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=2HJvP7Ml; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=BKHdu6Mb
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JRSHqCUDvayE for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9BE1200F1 for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3550644C for <>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:38:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 11:38:51 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=EH5KsjHuPvLdfGDqmlH1GDx3sgUUowZ 5d2qmzQTbu9c=; b=2HJvP7MlakcrTNMFRtAg9ddjo8vlgF5kgBGjXd5OoOaByeG v0QuqltXehGjbImICMWwR+oZ2cf+hbq0LdbDYkNfSwscUtlYeUTYljFgfwDeGG0k 6BZDAevp3lT8g9GR/NtiAtM+M0h653VFP+jcwBxKfoybZervPvD10u8cAxXS5Kyz mo9NsfJycXZHVAGt341pYuS8WY3eE2QN+T4umIx1kfPX55bLOSFmuokkR/T8Ccr1 TsN0itrDuSPPPSC8O8actBwQWO560t+8cq1tZeCBb/FGNgEs8ZSaDZ2jdocEmzw4 m8sUsQZNXubw+baLGsyZ6NlIxI/rb8hwQpcPLRQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=EH5Ksj HuPvLdfGDqmlH1GDx3sgUUowZ5d2qmzQTbu9c=; b=BKHdu6Mbs1CfSgzaiHavyj ESY7AC+MJcjrXYVu/IUZwxI6fZ+Do4uUvLOgZP6OyNXcFAnMYAXcUR3lcHUaIBlX yIitIhyeD1FhS5FUAB3o75zLxwtaG+a/+LgOhlzJionxZNbE5uysOkOlG6R/LhVT XYAWqUUh0qh/6Es3y3g6a6bJv22Jb78CQLI6fsZOyhk9q4iAT2YrRSfTayA4bilr 6rndNqVlXtPKq+d0TnfzZPTe5VC0ver7W2Ex5Wo9XjSJMalqr9oW+AzXAea/0pLU 6WDb3HPVS4TmJeCTuIEL2esPRmmyi1NyidP7prrpuV8gYa2HNP7k2Zkq60zlAa6Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:GkE8Xov9-iLnXGvKCpdwcISipYDaluF4exIAe4JHx-fQIbFy_KJPUfXM84A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrheefgdeltdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfrrghtrhhitghkucfovghviigvkhdfuceophhmseguohht rghnuggtohdrtghomheqnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepphhmseguohhtrghnuggtohdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:GkE8XsRI8T4nTcYpgcsXuNyapx54vZhqqH2b__Gdwp9_FruGC4wmxg> <xmx:GkE8Xk8H5zD2i7ZomfAo_CSo2vpG-n-7HQioiXq6pmUbZwex8VjNbA> <xmx:GkE8Xo9x2bUiEchpPE6qU0qZSEGRXTjxEvS5zu2YU1iGqGtCY7SGDQ> <xmx:GkE8XiB0RR8OPaGAFkLFVM32brMWdzs478019WLC5rYM_aTGqUHEEQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 86A6DC200A5; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:38:50 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-802-g7a41c81-fmstable-20200203v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 11:38:30 -0500
From: Patrick Mevzek <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7482bis-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:38:55 -0000

Hello Scott,

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 10:45, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> This version of the document completes the updates for all known 
> clarifications and corrections. We may still want to add implementation 
> status information, so if you're an RDAP client implementor and you'd 
> like to help move this along your input would be greatly appreciated. 

I was under the impression, but I may be wrong, that "bis" documents should/can
have a section clearly outlining the differences they bring from the original
RFC they are a bis on, so that an implementer can see immediately which area
have changes. Is this not useful there or not relevant? Or will that happen
maybe later?

As for implementations, I guess I could add data about the RDAP client one from work,
(and hence many deployment experiences similar to what is outlined in
as I have not being able yet to release anything for my own free one under free time.
But not sure it would add value to the document. We can discuss that separately.

  Patrick Mevzek