Hi Kaveh, On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 05:29:38PM +0100, Kaveh Ranjbar wrote: > I think one word has been doing too much work in this exchange, and > your LACNIC example is what made it clear to me, so thank you for > it. > > I have not been proposing the relation in place of the redirect. I > have been proposing it on top of one. The registry still redirects > for transport, so an unchanged client asking for the more specific > resource lands on the holder's record exactly as it does today. That > is the whole of your backwards compatibility concern, and I want to > meet it head on: the most specific answer stays reachable with no > client change. rdap-base-down is not the path to that answer, it is > a second, optional thing on the covering object that says a > subordinate service exists and lets a client that cares enumerate > and cross the boundary deliberately. no_redirects is the third > piece, for a client that wants the registry's own record as well as > the child's. Redirect for compatibility, relation for discovery, > flag for the parent. Not one instead of another. > > On registro.br, I read that as the in-system case rather than a > counter to it. registro.br is a registry, and LACNIC redirects to it > because LACNIC has been configured to: the pointer lives in the > system and the bootstrap-plus-redirect chain reaches it. That is > exactly the RIR and NIR situation I agreed needs no new machinery. > The case the draft is scoped to is narrower: a holder running RDAP > for delegations below its own allocation, records the RIR keeps out > of its database by design, on a server no one has configured the RIR > to point at. Where the holder does register that pointer with the > registry, I am happy for the server to redirect, and to say so with > a MUST, which I think is the requirement you asked for earlier. What > the relation adds in that case is only what the bare redirect cannot > give: that a delegation exists at all, and that answering it crossed > out of the registry's own data. > > So I think we are closer than the last few mails suggest. If I write > -01 as "the server MUST still redirect, and MAY additionally > advertise rdap-base-down, with no_redirects available to a client > that wants both records," does that resolve the compatibility > objection for you?
Yep, that sounds fine to me, thanks. -Tom _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
