On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 12:19 AM Tom Harrison <t...@apnic.net> wrote:
> For new path segments, see section 5 of RFC 9082: > > Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a > unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For > example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing > "entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". > > But per the earlier comment from James, this text does not use > normative language, and the use of 'custom_entity' supports the > argument that the example is specifically about the case where the new > name conflicts with an existing name. So path segments without > suffixes appear to be acceptable. However, the previous paragraph puts a little more context around that: ------------- This document describes path segment specifications for a limited number of objects commonly registered in both RIRs and DNRs. It does not attempt to describe path segments for all of the objects registered in all registries. Custom path segments can be created for objects not specified here using the process described in Section 6 of "HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)" [RFC7480]. -------------- While there should be normative language there (perhaps an errata is required), it certainly seems unwise to create potential for collisions. That would be especially tragic for a working group to knowingly do, IMHO. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
