Subject: Re: [weirds] [weirds-interop] weirds implementation survey

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:31:12 +0200

Marc,

	Isn't it intended to [email-masked]?

Regards,
as

On 7/30/13 4:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Hello,
>  during the weirds interop session saturday, a short survey was created and filled by the implementors. The following is a summary of the features that were found negative (not implemented, no plan to implement). 
> 
> Which leaves a question to the wg: Should some of these features be removed from the specs? Should some of these features be MAY instead of SHOULD or MUST?
> 
> Regards, Marc.
> ===========
> 
> 1) Features _not_ implemented by _most_ implementations:
>          draft-ietf-weirds-json-response:
>           5.4 lang
> 
>          draft-ietf-weirds-using-http
>           5.2 302 Response with Location:
>           5.2 303 Response with Location:
>           5.2 307 Response with Location:
>           5.5 429 Response
>           5.6 Access-Control-Allow-Origin Header
>           9.3 Return Content-language Header
> 
> 2) Features _not_ implemented by _some_ implementations:
>            (some features here are not listed because they are specific for one kind of registry (i.e. addresses vs domains)
> 
>          draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
>           3.4 /nameserver/<idn a-label>
>           3.4 /nameserver/<idn u-label>
>           3.6 /help
> 
>          draft-ietf-weirds-json-response:
>           5.3 remarks
>           5.6 status
>          5.7 port43
>           5.8 public id
>           6.2.1 secureDNS dsData
>           6.2.2 secureDNS keyData
> 
> _______________________________________________
> weirds-interop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.viagenie.ca/mailman/listinfo/weirds-interop
>