James,
Preventing naming collisions in RDAP requests (query paths and parameters) and
responses (JSON) across multiple RDAP extensions does make sense.
But this is not a problem for a media type since its parameters, if any, are
appended right after (delimited by a semi-colon) in an Accept or a Content-Type
header, and that inherently makes them unique from parameters for another media
type, as in:
accept: application/json;q=0.9,
application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0
rdapExtensions1 fred";q=1,
<another media type>;extensions="…”;<another
parameter>=”…”;q=1
Furthermore, for example, the “charset” parameter exists for both the
“text/html” and “text/csv” media types.
In other words, if media types are guaranteed to be unique, which the IANA
Media Types registry [1] ensures, naming parameters for each of them is
considered safe from collisions. Hence, no need for prefixing a media type’s
parameters.
Jasdip
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml
From: Gould, James <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 2:39 PM
To: Jasdip Singh <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, Hollenbeck, Scott
<[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: [regext] Re: On bare identifiers in Extensions draft
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]
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]
