Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

addresses issue #41 (REST architectural style and the JSON data-interchange format) #42

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 21, 2024

Conversation

anewton1998
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR addresses issue #41

@pawel-kow pawel-kow changed the title addresses issue #41 addresses issue #41 (REST architectural style and the JSON data-interchange format) Nov 21, 2024
@@ -3,7 +3,8 @@
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) was standardized ([STD69](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/std69/))
in 2009 to address the needs of domain name management between domain name registries and registrars.
Though EPP is still serving the domain name industry well, the progress in available development, integration and operational
patterns, tools and technologies create a desire to have a provisioning protocol using the REST architectural style and the JSON data-interchange format.
patterns, tools and technologies create a desire to have a provisioning protocol using the [REST](https://ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is the right reference: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm
At least this is how it's linked on the author's own publication page: https://roy.gbiv.com/vita.html

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's the reference for the full paper. The link I provided goes specifically to Section 5, the REST architectural style.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know, I was just trying to follow the general pattern of references to the full publication, same as in other IETF documents, not deep link to the specific chapter.
This was just a remark, I can live with deep link as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants