Hi. On 7/17/23, 7:36 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > As an aside note of the considerations at point 1, would like to know > the current WG's opinion about how relevant is making an RDAP server > easily accessible by a web browser.
[SAH] It's important to support *all* types of clients if possible. Anything less can lead to inconsistent user experiences, and that's bad for RDAP's long-term viability. [JS] Agreed. As long as we are talking HTTPS between clients and servers, be it browser-based interaction or otherwise, the "application/rdap-x+json" media type should work fine for negotiating RDAP extensions (most of the time content types or profiles, and sometime the lack of a particular content type (for example, noJCard extension)) using AFAIK well-known, well-implemented, and interoperable HTTP Accept and Content-Type headers. And it would afford us the granularity to negotiate content at each HTTP request/response level. Even a preflight HTTP OPTIONS request could be leverage for this media-type if needed. Thanks, Jasdip _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
