Hi Tom,
thanks a lot for your further review.
My responses are included below.
Il 02/03/2020 00:49, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
Hi Mario,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:43:39PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
The following working group document is believed to be ready for
submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track
document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 13 March
2020.
Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1”
is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by
replying to this message on the list.
Some questions/comments on section 2.4.2 ("Paging Responses to POST
Requests"):
- 'Therefore, an RDAP response element which is meant to represent
the pagination information should also consider the POST method':
does this mean that even for requests submitted using the GET
method, server implementers may respond with the "cursors" element
in the "paging_metadata" section?
- 'As a consequence, the "paging_metadata" element MUST include an
additional property, alternate to "links", that contains the cursor
values used for pagination': does this mean that the response MUST
include either "links" or "cursors", but not both?
I think the two points above are related.
The basic concept is that "links" must be provided when GET is used
while "cursors" must be provided when POST is used instead and both
"links" and "cursors" must not be included in the response.
I will rearrange the sentence to clarify it.
- The "cursors" element provides a POST parameter, but it does not
specify the URL to use for the request. What URL should the client
use? (It may also be worth documenting explicitly how the cursor
parameter is used when constructing that request.)
My opinion is that the endpoint a client should use for POST requests is
out of the scope of this document.
It may be either one of the those supporting the GET method or a
different one.
Similarly, since the cursor parameter as well as other POST parameters
must be delivered by the client in the request body, we don't need to
know the structure of the request body.
A client may put one of the values included in the "cursors" map in the
body of a subsequent request in order to navigate the result set.
- 'The map keys MUST contain the "rel" values used for generating the
paging links (Figure 7)': a reference to RFC 8288 may be needed
here.
Agreed.
Some other minor issues, in section 2.3.1:
- Each of the JSON paths for the events is like
'events[?(@.eventAction=="{name}")].eventDate'. If there are
multiple events with a given action, this will map to multiple
event date values. As with the nameserver IPv4/IPv6 parts, it
looks like an '[0]' at the end will fix this.
OK.
- The JSON path for the lastChanged sorting property is given as
'$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="lastChanged")].eventDate',
but the eventAction value is actually "last changed", rather than
"lastChanged".
OK.
- None of the JSON paths take account of jCard 'pref' values (it
doesn't look like there's a way for this to be handled using a JSON
path). Adding some text about this may help to avoid confusion for
people who just use the JSON paths as-is.
Agreed. I will include an example of JSON path considering the pref
parameter.
Please let me know if all the responses sound good for you so I can go
ahead and post the new version.
Best,
Mario
-Tom
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
