On 10-06-2026 5:58 AM, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Hi Andy, most (perhaps all) of the extensions proposed so far aim to fix a flaw in RDAP, as defined by the STD95 standard. Therefore, I believe all clients and servers should implement these extensions to make RDAP more efficient and interoperable.
I disagree. Things like geofeed, the rpki extension, and even jscontact came around after RDAP was standardized. The only extension that we probably should have put in RDAP from the start is cidr0, and that is not even an IETF extension.
Don't you think the signaling mechanism described in rdap-x-media-type should be implemented by all clients and servers?
No. Only if they need to use it.
IMO the question is whether we truly believe an extension is useful or not. Regarding versioning as defined in rdap-versioning, I believe sending a /help query is currently the method used by clients to discover which RDAP features servers implement. Since these features might change over time, I expect clients to regularly (not before each request, but periodically) send a /help query to synchronize their implementations with those of the servers.
No clients do this today. But this confirms my earlier assertion that what is being attempted with the versioning draft is not backwards compatible with everything deployed today.
If a server implements the versioning specification, a client can not only check which extensions, but also which versions of those extensions are implemented by the server.
And what will the client do with that information? I have asked this question multiple times and have yet to get an answer. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
