Hi Patrick,
Il 31/07/2020 16:33, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
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.
The server might inlcude in rdapConformance either the hints to all the
supported features or the only hints to the features allowed to the
consumer.
This also applies to the help response. Definitively, it's a matter of
server policy.
Mario
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
