Hi James, The string literal “rdapExtensions1” is intended as this ‘profile’ extension’s identifier, per the Extension Identifier section [1].
Not sure if we need such prefixing to avoid parameter collision for media types, like “application/rdap+json”, that the IETF produces. AFAIK, this is not even done for the non-IETF media type trees like “vnd.”. Jasdip [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type-03.html#name-extension-identifier From: Andrew (andy) Newton <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 8:32 AM To: Gould, James <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [regext] Re: On bare identifiers in Extensions draft On 6/16/25 07:56, Gould, James wrote: > > Shouldn’t the x-media draft register the “extensions” RDAP extension > identifier and use an extension identifier prefix in place of the bare > identifier for the “extensions” media type parameter, such as > “extensions_extensions”, “extensions_param”? I believe the x-media draft > should include an RDAP extension registration, but I don’t believe there is > the need to change from the use of the bare identifier. I think "extensions_list" is probably what we want. Good point. I've created an issue for the next rev. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
