On 7/5/23, 3:44 PM, "regext on behalf of Andrew Newton" <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of a...@hxr.us <mailto:a...@hxr.us>> wrote: > 5) I'm very curious to know the WG reaction about the use of "noJCard" > extension. AFAIK, providing an alternative represention along with > jCard in an RDAP response has not been considered an issue so far even > in case of handling large amounts of data. Most of us (not me) have > considered too complex for both clients and servers to imlement the > negotiation of the contact representation to be returned in the > response. In addition, in this case, the negotiation is made through > two extension identifiers while in rdap-jscontact setting the jscard > parameter to 1/true means that jCard is not returned.
For most lookups, returning both will not matter much. However, for searches yielding many more than one result it could be a definite bandwidth savings. The implementation would most likely be up to server policy on the server side. [JS] Mario, sorry if I sound a bit biased here but IMO using the "noJCard" extension along with the RDAP-X based content negotiation looks like a rather neat idea whether used for Simple Contact or JSContact. It avoids the query parameter-based issues when negotiating content, as explained in the RDAP-X draft. Jasdip _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
