> -----Original Message----- > From: Gavin Brown <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:09 AM > To: REGEXT Working Group <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] request for adoption: draft-brown-rdap-referrals > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > Greetings, > > I would like to ask the WG to consider adopting this document:
[snip] [SAH] I'm still working on my opinion given the existence of the RDAP Partial Response Extension specified in RFC 8982. That extension allows a client to explicitly request the related link field set. For example: "https://example.com/rdap/domain?name=example.com&fieldSet=related"; I understand that 8982 describes partial response bodies, and this new draft describes return of the link object information in "Link" headers. Do we need to have two ways to retrieve the same information? How is the method described in the draft "better"? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
