Thanks, Scott. RFC 8288 (obsoletes RFC 5988) also retains this requirement (in section 2).
Jasdip From: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 at 11:28 AM To: Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net>, james.mitch...@iana.org <james.mitch...@iana.org>, a...@hxr.us <a...@hxr.us> Cc: regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [regext] [Ext] Re: RDAP and link context From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 2:12 PM To: James Mitchell <james.mitch...@iana.org>; Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] [Ext] Re: RDAP and link context Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi. Did some digging on this. Right, RFC 7483 had only “href” as a MUST. RFC 7483bis (eventually RFC 9083) additionally made “rel” and “value” as MUST’s. Looks like the “rel” MUST came about because of RFC 8288 mandating so [1], and the RDAP Deployment Findings and Update draft highlighting so [2]. As for making “value” a MUST, the rationale is not very clear from [2]. It even passed the IESG review [3]. (Scott might be able to shed more light on this. :)) [SAH] The change was made in version -01 of draft-hollenbeck-regext-rfc7483bis (“Clarified that the "value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified in the "links" array.”) Here’s the on-list discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/kWZ9ix80uaUAHqXjJsf_L2IN-Ys/ Blame RFC 5988. [SAH] Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
