On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:00 PM Marc Blanchet <marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca> wrote: > > The fact that some people are willing to provide services in addition to the > standard track RFCs for bootstrapping RFC9224) does not mean that it should > influence how we design our protocols. I have a hard time thinking that we > are limiting our design space by not supporting all HTTP semantics, such as > query parameters. Hence, I disagree with this argument. > > Marc.
Marc, Please read sections 5.2 and 4.3 of RFC 7480. Those semantics are used in redirects in the ecosystem, and redirects are quite heavily used in the RIRs as the RDAP bootstrap cannot account for inter-RIR transfers. Also, we should very much be influenced by the services deployed based on concepts in our own RFCs, especially since they are compliant with our own RFCs. But I do agree with "I have a hard time thinking that we are limiting our design space by not supporting all HTTP semantics". That's why the RDAP-X media type has been proposed. Have you read the draft? Because it solves the problem using HTTP semantics. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
