Hi Mario, my responses are inline.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:42 AM Mario Loffredo
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> [ML]
>
> 1) In addition to Pawel's feedback, it seems to me that, unless you
> leverage a REST plugin, you are unable to use this extension through a
> web browser.

The browser Javascript Fetch API supports setting Accept headers.
There is no need for a specific plugin.

> 2) Does this document update RFC 9083 ?
>
> RFC 9083 states that type is an OPTIONAL member of the link data
> structure while this document states that "application/rdap+json media
> type is RECOMMENDED when the URI references RDAP resources"

I don't think so. This RECOMMENDED is only for rdap-x.

> As an aside note of the considerations at point 1, would like to know
> the current WG's opinion about how relevant is making an RDAP server
> easily accessible by a web browser.
>
> If I remember well, it has been vey relevant in the past. But this
> document goes in the opposite direction. Hence I'm not so sure it will
> keep on being relevant in the future.

All of the RIRs and ICANN have browser-based RDAP clients. Plus there
are a handful of independent browser-based clients. So they are very
relevant. I even wrote one a number of years ago using jQuery. Here is
where it sets an explicit Accept header media type:
https://github.com/anewton1998/rdap_webspa/blob/8e49ee8fae56dd2cbdd3fd575d38e9f8996b6dcf/src/logic.js#L416

But there is no need to draw a distinction between browser-based
clients and non-browser clients in this regard. Both should work.

-andy

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to