Join GitHub today
RFC0006: RSF version 1 #12
RSF has been documented in multiple places but never in a consistent manner. This is an attempt to describe the current state of things and serve as the starting point to create the first RSF specification.
Note that RSF has no versioning system. This is a good opportunity to discuss if we should add one to allow non backwards-compatible changes without breaking clients.
Guidance to review
Review the current implementation of RSF is accurately described in this RFC and that the explanation is understandable and unequivocal.
MatMoore left a comment •
This makes sense to me, and I think it's good to specify the grammar and semantics of RSF, but I'd rather the registers spec doesn't require RSF as way to mint or download data. Can we leave out the REST API section entirely, and address it as an ADR in openregisters-java?
It feels like there are already a lot of different ways of downloading data from a register, and I'm wary about adding any more endpoints that do similar things to existing ones, because it makes the API harder to use. At the moment RSF is an internal thing and API users shouldn't need to understand it.
I like @michaelabenyohai's idea of combining with the download-register endpoint as the RSF could just be requested through content negotiation.