Hi Orie,

For RDAP profile is (or can be) an extension same time. Extension mechanism is used as signalling in this case.

See 2.1.1 of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions.

From this perspective the WG does not make protocol profiling as such but mechanisms needed for profiling were coped with so far.

Kind Regards,

Pawel

On 16.09.25 15:38, Orie wrote:
Excellent point.

Would it not be easier to remove the word profile though?

Have we ever done profiles in this WG before?

Why should profiles be in scope?

Regards,

OS


On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 4:53 AM Maarten Wullink <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hi Orie,


    Minor comment here,

    >
    >
    > A primary goal of the working group is to ensure the profiles
    and extensions are easily discoverable and understood, and to
    avoid duplicate effort that could harm interoperability.
    >

    This is the first and only mention a the “profile” concept, and it
    is used in the context of the primary goal of the wg.
    Does this not warrant some additional text describing what a
    profile is or adding a line saying what profile related wg
    activities are in scope?

    Regards,
    Maarten


_______________________________________________
regext mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to