> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:42 PM > To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com>; kowa...@denic.de; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft- > newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt > > 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. > > James, > > Thanks for this. I think I covered this in section 10 of the draft, though > probably not in as much detail as needed. > > Yes, this is one path forward but it does not provide the functionality as > advertised in the RFC and is a lot machinery just to replicate the "remarks" > feature of core RDAP, albeit with less functionality as "remarks" can be > associated directly with an RDAP object and can provide descriptive text in > multiple languages (unlike "redaction"). > > As Gavin pointed out, such an approach does not work well with clients that > do not present the data in a linear style (rdap.org, search.arin.net/rdap, > etc...). > > When time permits, I'll update the draft to more thoroughly cover this topic.
[SAH] Andy, with the various JSONPath elements being OPTIONAL, are you saying that the clients you described above can't process a redacted response using only the name value? Could you point me to Gavin's explanation? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
