On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:27 PM Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > For draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted, I view the registration of the extension > identifier “redacted_level_0_3” (target of “redacted_level_1” after WGLC) > that is returned in RDAP Conformance as meeting the signaling needs. The > registration of the prefix “redacted” ensures uniqueness of the member > included in the JSON response. This could be addressed with the single RDAP > Extension Registry registration of “redacted”, where the specification > formally defines the full version included in the rdapConformance member, but > I feel inclusion of the separate full identifier registration as being more > explicit for signaling. What happens when there is version 2 of the redacted > extension, should the RDAP Extension Registry only reference the latest > specification for the “redacted” prefix used in the “rdapConformance”, or > would it be better to include two versioned identifiers (“redacted_level_1” > and “redacted_level_2”) that link to the associated specification in the RDAP > Extension Registry? I believe having both versions in the RDAP Extension > Registry provides benefit to the client. I recommend updating the registered > prefixes for the extension with the latest specification.
I think I agree with this. Being explicit leaves less room for ambiquity. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
