Hi Mario, > 2) Deprecating one feature and replacing it with another always implies a > transition period during which both features are provided by the server and > can be requested by the client. Therefore, I didn't understand the argument > that the draft couldn't be made ST because jCard is already there. Even if > the draft remained experimental, JSContact and jCard would coexist for a more > or less long time. The only difference in making jscontact-rdap ST is that > the WG would agree that JSContact is a more efficient representation of jCard > and could be a technically viable alternative to jCard.
i see no valid reason why jscontact cannot become a ST, a client/server can support both in multiple ways, we just have to figure out which format is the future preferred format. I prefer jscontact over jcard any day. This may be a good time to start thinking about a generic process for deprecating RDAP fields/headers/params/objects? because this might happen again in the future for example when DELEG becomes a reality we might want to replace the Nameserver object. > > 3) As suggested by Jasdip on the mailing list, I also think that using > JSContact in RDAP should be viewed first and foremost as an extension like > any other. While the draft also includes guidance for a transition process > between jCard and JSContact, it doesn't explicitly state that jCard is > deprecated neither it defines the duration of the transition process. Like > any other extension, it always depend on how many servers will implement and > how many clients will require this extension. I’m not sure if making jscontact an extension is the best way forward, it signals that the core format for an entity is always jCard and it will make deprecating jCard not any easier maybe it would be better to add jscontact to the rdap “core" as an alternative for jcard, keeping jcard as the default format (for now, to not break existing clients), the client can then use a mimetype to signal what type of response is preferred? > > That said, and considering that most of WG members (3 out of 4 including Jim) > who spoke on the mic at last meeting supported reconsidering the draft's > status, I expect that the Chairs will post a call to verify the WG consensus > on turning the draft back to ST. +1 - Maarten _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
