On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 9:33 AM Keathley, Daniel <dkeathley=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >
> > [DJK] There was some similar discussion at IETF-121. Formally defining RDAP > extension points I think is a good thing. An extension could then choose > which of those points to leverage e.g. path segments, query parameters, > object classes, etc. Basically, your list here. It's an interesting idea to > define an extension as simply an aggregate of other extensions. Such an > extension doesn't implement the formal extension points itself but instead > requires compliance with other extensions that do. Could be useful. Would you > still expect each of those "nested" extensions to be present in the rdap > conformance array, or just the profile extension? Such an example already exists in the 2024 gTLD profile and the NRO profile. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
