Hi Jasdip, > On 22 Aug 2025, at 16:43, Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net> wrote: > > Hi Pawel, > > If that’s the sole problem to solve, then your redirection idea should work, > and seems more efficient. Though, having more than one target URIs for a > relation type seems problematic here, to your earlier point. > > From the abstract of this draft: > > "This document describes how RDAP servers can provide HTTP "Link" header > fields in RDAP responses to allow RDAP clients to efficiently determine the > URL of related RDAP records for a resource." > > Seems like the authors intended their proposal more as an equivalent referral > mechanism for RDAP “links” array [1] through the use of Link headers, rather > than for redirection purposes. Would be good to clarify that.
The reasoning behind the current approach was: 1. Many (if not most) RDAP clients want the registrar RDAP record 2. Both clients and servers have an interest in this being as lightweight as possible 3. HEAD is very lightweight, since there is no payload, and is cacheable 4. RDAP's link objects can be losslessly converted into Link: header fields 5. If servers mirror RDAP link objects to Link: header fields, they become usable in HEAD requests. Points 1 and 2 above are the problem statement. 3-5 are the proposed solution. G. -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
