The Chairs have caught up on this thread and have the following proposal
for the working group
We suggest that the working group take on the problem space of
considering negotiation, signaling, and versioning in RDAP.
To properly consider this problem space we should adopt as working group
documents the following three drafts, all of which address at least part
of this problem space:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning/
(-02 just posted)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type/
In general, our goal as a working group is to have one solution on the
standards track to a problem. After we have adopted these documents the
working group will have to answer at least two questions:
1. Is there one problem to be solved or more than one?
2. Is there one solution or, if there are multiple problems, do we need
multiple solutions?
These are technical questions based on use cases that have been
discussed. The Chairs also suggest that we have an interim meeting,
perhaps in late January or early February, during which we have a
focused discussion seeking answers to those two questions, studying the
value and benefits of each of the proposals in the documents above. The
Chairs will address the logistics of an interim meeting after we have
adopted these documents.
In addition, there is the question of whether or not the solution(s) to
be proposed impact the following two documents:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-simple-contact/
The Chairs suggest that the simple-contact document should also be
adopted, to move forward on the Experimental track with jsContact, and
that we consider if either is impacted by the solution(s) to be
proposed.
Thanks,
Antoin and Jim
On 14 Nov 2023, at 18:26, Jasdip Singh wrote:
Hello Antoin, Jim,
Given the ongoing discussion on how to negotiate extensions between
RDAP clients and servers (using HTTP headers versus query parameters),
be it for SimpleContact [1], JSContact [2], or versioning in RDAP [3],
Andy and I want to request a call for WG adoption of the RDAP-X draft
[4]. We believe that the HTTP headers-based approach could help unify
extensions negotiation across the RDAP ecosystem.
Thanks,
Jasdip & Andy
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-simple-contact/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact/
[3]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-regext-rdap-versioning/
[4]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type/
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
