HI Andy,
Il 19/07/2022 17:10, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:58 AM Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> wrote:
Since rdapConformance is defined as an array of strings, adding the sub-element
definition in the rdapConformance is something new.
It is not new. Adding another string to the array is exactly how it is
supposed to work. I'm not in favor of creating entirely new mechanisms
if the ones we have will suffice. Can you please demonstrate why it
will not work?
In my opinion, it doesn't work when the extension is related to a
specification defined out of the RDAP context but is used in RDAP such
as JSContact or VCARD itself. In this case, a server can simply update
the hint in rdapConformance to signal that a new version of the external
specification is supported.
As a matter of fact, we have already done it (even if unconsciously)
without either passing from "rdap_level_0" to "rdap_level_1".
I'm referring to the fact that the RDAP response format has indirectly
been extended to support the VCARD CC parameter when RDAP responses were
already provided by servers and consumed by clients.
Best,
Mario
As for auto-discovery, I am not discounting your call-out for that
feature. I just don't think it applies to the use cases you have
provided. Additionally, I don't know if it is a problem yet, as Scott
has pointed out the /help query allows a client to discover a server's
capabilities.
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
