[regext] Re: Referrals to holder-designated RDAP servers for subordinate resources (draft-ranjbar-regext-rdap-subordinate-referrals-00)

[Andy Newton <[e-mail]>]

On 10/15/26 2:40 PM, Kaveh Ranjbar wrote:
> 
> Two things I would value the group's view on. Andy, my question from
> September still stands: can extensions still take the base relations
> or should we wait for it to turn over? 

Are you asking if an extension can use the rdap-base-* relations, if that is an I-D you should normatively reference the extension draft.

> And one that came out of
> review: rdap-extensions defines a redirect loop as any redirect back
> to a server already visited during the same query, which rules out a
> holder sending a lookup for an address it holds nothing for back to
> the registry's covering object, even though that is a different
> resource. -02 works around it by having the holder answer with its own> record for the covering block. If the intent was to forbid revisiting
> the same URL rather than the same server, it may be worth saying so in
> extensions.

Ok. Yeah.... we need to tighten up that language to say the loops are about resources specifically. So if you redirect to a different resource that should be ok. Good catch.

-andy