Jasdip, The same case can be made for query parameters and path segments. An RDAP extension can come in many forms, whether it be media type parameters, query parameters, path segments, and JSON members. I personally don’t believe there is any issue with bare identifiers for extension elements if there is no conflict and there is a clear specification. If we’re going to require an extension identifier prefix with an underbar separator for all RDAP extension elements, that would apply to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type and its media type parameter.
Thanks, -- JG [cid87442*[email protected]] James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected]<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 10:59 AM To: "Andrew (andy) Newton" <[email protected]>, James Gould <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: On bare identifiers in Extensions draft Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1s3TRlXlUHD4LwvWvsWs2lnaUeJVvWW2GLuuVzdbtP3_oR1cr_Q07S61RomAnDMuMl414YyoM0QbzUvX4U1dp6bvoab5pRVRuhpTJMK_35HZ3R6MuNkFtOaDywZD6tBPG7d9tep-fMm86fO9aHfjdgxUspeyCOeXB0zY4n08LWB63VO8AF1R0YXBCOCJN5R7JH-U7y04Uq5hkTvf00P6wKgEYot4rh5ThUQPpKheXdsJB7BTg3D5u6Ui7jm1Lb0FJFligapXOywcHFX78qe1-hN1MVtVnxWt8g8AVxQlyF30/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type-03.html%23name-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]
