From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:02 AM To: "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>, "t...@apnic.net" <t...@apnic.net> Cc: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenb...@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [regext] Extension Prefixes, JSON Values, and URI Path Segments
… 2.It looks like there is consensus that the RDAP Extension Registry ensures uniqueness of the identifiers and prefixes used by the extensions for the rdapConformance, URI path segments, and JSON response members. I believe the values of the “objectClassName” needs to be included as well to support the definition of new RDAP objects. [ML] Agreed. I'm a bit doubtful about including query parameters as proposed by Jasdip since it would break RFC8977 and RFC8982. This is another reason why I don't support Approach A. [JS] IIRC, so far we have seen this in the “roidc1” extension only ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-13 ). But, a good point about how far we go with prefixing for name collision prevention. Perhaps, this should mimic how we only use the prefix in a new object class name and not for its sub-data, and having the prefix in the path segment before the query parameters might suffice. Clearly, this all needs to be spelled out. :) … Jasdip
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
