Hi Barry, Il 28/07/2020 15:11, Barry Leiba ha scritto:
Hi, Mario; thanks for the response. I've eliminated, below, the comments that I consider addressed.o "totalCount": "Numeric" (OPTIONAL) a numeric value representing the total number of objects found. It MUST be provided if the query string contains the "count" parameter; Section 2.2 says also that it MUST NOT be provided otherwise, and I suggest adding that here as well: ‘It MUST be provided if the query string contains the "count" parameter, and MUST NOT be provided otherwise;’, or perhaps ‘It MUST be provided if and only if the query string contains the "count" parameter;’. I also wonder whether the same thing is true for pageSize and pageNumber. [ML] Opted for "if and only if". The same doen't work for for pageSize and pageNumber because thy are provided depending on the comparison between the maximum number of results returned in a page and the total number of objects found.Right, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by "the same". Clearly, pageSize and pageNumber aren't controlled by the "count" parameter. What I meant was whether it's also true that pageSize and pageNumber are also provided on an "if and only if" basis: if and only if the total number of objects found exceeds the page size.
I apologize. Yes, that's true. I'll update the doc accordingly.
This property is redundant for clients because the page size can be derived from the length of the search results array but it can be helpful if the end user interacts with the server through a web browser; But a web browser is a client too. I suggest “redundant for some clients”; what do you think? [ML] I propose "RDAP clients". Is it okay?It's kind of okay, but... when a web browser is doing RDAP, isn't it also an RDAP client?
[ML] Yes but in that case for a human it is very ugly both to count the number of results returned in the page and to remember the number of the current page. The goal here is to avoid that a human using simply a web browser feels disoriented in the result set.
On the contrary, a non-human user, I mean a software agent acting as an RDAP client, can easily find or caluclate both of them. In that sense, they might be considered redundant by an implementer of an RDAP client.
I think what you're really referring to is purpose-built RDAP clients, which will likely have been coded to more completely understand the full RDAP. I'm not sure what the best way to refer to those is, and calling them "RDAP clients" might be fine, and the right answer. I think people will understand what you mean. Let's go with that, and see if there are any comments about it during last call or from the IESG. I think it will be okay.
[ML] OK. Cheers, Mario
Barry _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
