[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt

[kowa...@denic.de]

Hi Scott,

On 12.02.25 18:06, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

*From:* Pawel Kowalik <kowa...@denic.de>
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:59 AM
*To:* Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us>
*Cc:* regext@ietf.org


Hi Andy,

On 12.02.25 17:06, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote:

        Allowing bare identifiers still leave the choice open for extensions 
which have a potential of generic use.

    Why does requiring a prefix preclude generic use?





*/[SAH] Because there’s value in consistency./*

*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-05.txt Of course technically nothing, because syntactically a prefixed identifier is also an identifier. On the other side, if an extension only wants to add one single path segment /search/ what's good about forcing this extension to make it /s_search/ just for the sake of making "s_" a namespace with one single suffix in it?

[PK] True. In this case by introducing consistency we actually break consistency with existing extensions, some of them being RFCs. So I argue it's not worth it. It's not something that is broken that needs to be fixed.

Kind Regards,

Pawel

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org