Hi Jasdip, > On 7 Nov 2025, at 18:03, Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Gavin, > > Please find below some minor feedback on this draft: > > Section 3 "RDAP Response Specification”: > > Beside Maarten’s compression analysis, considering array-versus-map from > data organization angle, the array approach seems to afford more efficient > organization if TTL, remarks, and events were common across multiple RR > types. Though not sure if such commonality generally exists for various RR > types in the field. Furthermore, since maps are typically useful for speedier > search by a particular key, unless a client was doing something selective > like this when processing the TTL data from a response, the array approach > should be programmatically simpler. > > For the “types” property’s possible values, should the "Supported DNS > Record Types” section from RFC 9803 (EPP TTL extension) be referred?
I will add some text to the next version. > In the "Example domain object” JSON, should the “href” member for the web > link be different than the “value” member since the relation type is not > “self”? Good catch. Thanks! 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]
