Jasdip,
What I’m thinking is formally defining all known forms of extensions, each with
its own section, where there are no questions related to RDAP’s support for
each extension form. Further define how new forms of extensions can be
defined. Should there be an IANA registry of RDAP extensio
Hi Scott,
I absolutely get the need to be conservative when updating an Internet
standard. Please allow me to explain why this would be a good evolution.
Section 5 of RFC 9082 says:
“Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a unique
identifier followed by an underscore
Jasdip,
The use of sub-paths was not an envisioned form of extension in the base RFCs
as is the case for the other forms of extension that I included in my prior
mailing list messages (e.g., query parameters, HTTP headers, “objectClassName”
values). The forms of extensions in the base RFCs are
Hi James,
Right, that’s what the Extensions draft is intended for – reasonably capture
areas where the extension concept needs to evolve wrt the current standard, as
well as clarify the current extension concept. Since this draft has already
gone through couple of structural re-organizations, p
From: Jasdip Singh
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; a...@hxr.us; regext@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open
