Hi Jasdip, > On 19 Aug 2025, at 21:22, Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since the web links are grouped together for each RDAP object returned in an > RDAP query response, not sure if that grouping knowledge would be lost when > they are “unionized" in one or more Link headers returned. Probably, this > seems a minor concern.
It's not stated explicitly in the document, but the Link headers would only correspond to the link objects in the topmost object of the response. This is because (as *is* stated), the context URI of the links is the URI that was requested by the user agent. > Architecturally, heeding the advice from RFC 1958 3.2 [1], would additionally > doing Link headers beside RDAP partial responses be considered another way to > get the same info (bad), or an improvement over the latter (good)? Seems an > improvement, no? :) I don't think we should standardise two different ways of doing the same thing. Each approach has pros and cons. If adopted, I would seek the WG's advice on how to weigh them! G. -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
