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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:39 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-hollenbeck-regext-
> rfc7482bis-02.txt
>
> 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?

There's a log at the end of the document. All of the changes have been described on the errata page and/or in email sent to this mailing list.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5621

I *could* spell out each change in detail in the document itself, but as a lazy editor I wanted to take a "less work" approach first, especially until we get a sense of reactions to the changes. If folks want to see a detailed OLD vs. NEW comparison, I'll add it.

> 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
> draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings)
> 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.

Anything you're willing to contribute would be welcomed.

Scott