Hi Andy,
please find my comments inline.
Il 07/12/2023 21:05, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:39 AM Mario Loffredo
<mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
[ML] Since it talks about "content negotiation", rdap-x regards clients
signaling their preferences about response extensions or, at most,
extensions involving both the response and the request.
With regard to pure request extensions, clients should signal
preferences by using query parameters prefixed by opaque extension
identifiers as defined in rdap-extensions.
This in turn implies that, on one hand, rdap-x is strictly bound to
rdap-extensions and, on the other hand, instead of what is stated in
Section 6 of rdap-extensions, even the extensions created by IETF MUST
use the extension identifier as a prefix.
Do you agree ?
The important part is that extensions have identifiers. The use of the
identifiers as prefixes for JSON names or URL paths or query
parameters is a separate issue.
[ML] We should figure out a solution that fits any extension regardless
of the fact that it involves only the response (which is the most likely
use case), the request or both.
In this respect, it seems to me that the meaning of both Accept and
Content-Type headers would be extended in the RDAP context.
[ML] It could be an issue if we decide to start using content
negotiation. The media type has not influenced the RDAP response so far.
With all due respect, that is incorrect. Current RDAP does do content
negotiation. Section 4.2 of RFC 7480 says the accept header can have
either application/rdap+json, application/json, or both and the
content-type header must have application/rdap+json.
[ML] It doesn't seem to me a real content negotiation since, per what is
stated in Section 4.2 of RFC7480, whatever it is the media type the
client specifies in the Accept header, the server always provides the
same Content-Type value and, most of all, the same response content.
To indicate to servers that an RDAP response is desired, clients
include an Accept header field with an RDAP-specific JSON media type,
the generic JSON media type, or both. Servers receiving an RDAP
request return an entity with a Content-Type header containing the
RDAP-specific JSON media type.
This is the first case we come across where the Content-Type value and
the content should be different based on the value of the Accept header.
If the Accept header value was changed by the cache, client preferences
would basically be ignored and the response wouldn't be the one expected
by the client.
For this reason, in my opinion, it would be better to further investigate.
Best,
Mario
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
