On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 08:02, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Furthermore, my opinion is that Section 4.1 of RFC7483bis should be > updated to treat this use case. I mean, a server should signal in > rdapConformance not only the extensions used in building the response > but all the supported features.
I am not sure to agree. A server could advertise everything it supports in some reply to an help query or another one that could be created, as a generic advertisement of features. But I believe a specific reply (message) should just list what pertains to this specific reply. Considering that, in the future, for the same query, the reply can be different based on the client and its level of access. -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
