> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Harrison <t...@apnic.net> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:12 PM > To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> > Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and > URI Path Segments
[SAH] [snip] > The uniqueness aspect of the registry is fine, as is the 'null suffix' > part. I'm more concerned with the confusing way in which the various > documents interact in this respect and the fact that two different 'types' > of > values will be registered (advisedly) from now on. [SAH] For what it's worth, in the next version of the federated authentication draft I'm going to register an extension identifier, "roidc1", (RDAP OpenID Connect version 1) in the RDAP Extensions Registry. I'm going to return that value in the rdapConformance data structure. I'm also going to use that value as a prefix for the new data structures, path segments, and query parameters defined in the extension. This way there will be a 1-1 mapping between the registered value and everything that appears in the extension, and there should be no confusion. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
