[regext] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-02.txt

["Andrew Newton (andy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi James and Scott,

I posted a PR to address your discussion points.

https://github.com/anewton1998/draft-regext-rdap-extensions/pull/30/files

Let me know what you think.

-andy

On 8/23/24 10:00, Gould, James wrote:
> Andy,
>
> It may be useful to include guidance for RDAP extensions use of the RDAP JSON Values registry in the extensions draft.  I believe that new RDAP extensions should be encouraged to support standard values to increase interoperability, where extending the RDAP JSON Values registry is better than creating a new registry specific to the RDAP extension and certainly better than not leveraging the RDAP JSON Values registry at all.  The Redacted Extension did this to define three new types with "redacted name", "redacted reason", and "redacted expression language", and the language used in the first paragraph of section 6.2 supported the extension of the types.  We could look to have any new types define the expected format of the values to help support the review by the DEs, where some types may be more freeform than others (e.g., support mixed case).  For example, the "redacted name" values did use mixed case to match the source policy and I believe the "redacted reason" values would be in more sentence form with mixed case and potentially punctuation.  The "redacted expression language" is more of an identifier, so it could be predefined as being only lowercase.  The Versioning Extension has a similar extension of the RDAP JSON Values registry types with the "versioning" type and registration of the values of "opaque" and "semantic".  I view the "versioning" type as more of an identifier, where being lowercase makes sense.
>
> The extensions draft could clarify the expected value format for the predefined types in the RDAP RFCs and provide the guidance for how to define new types with the expected value format for future RDAP extensions.
>