Hi Andy and Jasdip,
have some questions about draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type: 1) rdap_level_0 is included in "extensions" parameter, but it's not an extension, i.e. it's not included in the RDAP Extensions registry. Should it be removed? 2) If rdap_level_0 is an extension, is it required to be provided? 3) If rdap_level_0 is required, what should be the server response when the client doesn't include it or any required extension in the extension parameter? 4) Should the server distinguish the optional and required extensions supported? 5) With regard to your concern about the usage of query parameters, what should be used instead in order to specify values in RDAP queries? I mean, I could be good with using content negotiation to request for response extensions but it looks to me unfit to convey values in a query and we have already used that kind of query parameters in some RFCs. Indeed, apart from the query parameters used in search queries (e.g. those defined by RFC8977 and RFC8982) which can hardly be redirected, section 4.2 of RFC9560 includes query parameters that don't aim to request for a response extension and can be used in lookup queries. Best, Mario -- Dott. Mario Loffredo Senior Technologist Technological Unit “Digital Innovation” Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) National Research Council (CNR) Address: Via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy Phone: +39.0503153497 Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
