Hi Jasdip,Do you mean by adopting RDAP-X draft the WG shall include the requirements of all the said drafts when it comes to extensions and versions signalling and negotiation, or only keep the current scope and define extension points so that the other drafts can be based on the same method?
Some of those requirements, not yet covered by RDAP-X:- Versioning and JSContact have requirements included for signalling when certain extensions/versions start/end being available.
- Versioning introduces all the semantics of versions, which is not (yet) existing in the RDAP RFCs where I agree that if introduced shall base on the same concepts of content negotiation.
Kind Regards, Pawel Am 15.11.23 um 00:26 schrieb Jasdip Singh:
Hello Antoin, Jim,Given the ongoing discussion on how to negotiate extensions between RDAP clients and servers (using HTTP headers versus query parameters), be it for SimpleContact [1], JSContact [2], or versioning in RDAP [3], Andy and I want to request a call for WG adoption of the RDAP-X draft [4]. We believe that the HTTP headers-based approach could help unify extensions negotiation across the RDAP ecosystem.Thanks, Jasdip & Andy[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-simple-contact/[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning/[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type/_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
smime.p7s
Description: Kryptografische S/MIME-Signatur
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
