Hello Mario,
Please find my comment below.
Jasdip
On 7/31/20, 12:21 PM, "Mario Loffredo" <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
Il 31/07/2020 16:35, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
> IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the
phrase "specifications used in the construction of the response." It is about
what specifications were used for the returned response. No?
In my opinion, the sentence "specifications used in the construction of
the response" seems to be limited to those specifications introducing
some response extensions or complying the response with a specific
profile. The current reverse search proposal affects only the query
formats.
[JS] Right, this proposal extends RDAP query scenarios but rdapConformance is
about response capabilities for various query scenarios, including this one. So
if a reverse search query is responded to, including the new extension in the
rdapConformance portion of the response indicates that capability. And, the
current description of rdapConformance in 7843bis being response-centric seems
to suffice as-is for the newly proposed extension.
> On 7/31/20, 10:28 AM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
>
>
> Il 31/07/2020 16:10, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>
> >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:49 AM
> >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in
draft-ietf-regext-
> >> rdap-reverse-search
> >>
> >> Hi Scott,
> >>
> >> Il 31/07/2020 15:21, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:03 AM
> >>>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>;
regext@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in
> >>>> draft-ietf-regext- rdap-reverse-search
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Scott,
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks a lot for your feddback.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please find my comments to your feedback below.
> >>>>
> >>>> Il 31/07/2020 14:29, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> >>>>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search currently states that
"This
> >>>>> document
> >>>> has no actions for IANA". I believe that's primarily because
there's
> >>>> nothing new or different being returned in the search results,
which
> >>>> is where RDAP servers describe the features they support.
> >>>> Exactly.
> >>>>> There is, however, a case to be made for registering a value
in the
> >>>>> RDAP
> >>>> extensions registry: a response to a help query (or any other
query)
> >>>> can be used to indicate that the server supports reverse
search. I'd
> >>>> like to suggest this change for Section 7:
> >>>>> OLD:
> >>>>> This document has no actions for IANA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NEW:
> >>>>> IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
> >>>>> Extensions
> >>>> Registry:
> >>>>> Extension identifier: reverse_search_1_0 (or whatever makes
sense)
> >>>>> Registry operator: Any Published specification: This document.
> >>>>> Contact: IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> >>>>> Intended usage: This extension describes reverse search query
> >>>>> patterns
> >>>> for RDAP.
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>> I agree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Furthermore, my opinion is that Section 4.1 of RFC7483bis
should be
> >>>> updated to treat this use case. I mean, a server should signal
in
> >>>> rdapConformance not only the extensions used in building the
response
> >>>> but all the supported features.
> >>> So maybe this?
> >>>
> >>> OLD:
> >>> The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of
strings, each
> >> providing a hint as to the specifications used in the
construction of the
> >> response.
> >>> NEW:
> >>> The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of
strings, each
> >> providing a hint as to the specifications that describe the query
and response
> >> formats supported by the server.
> >>> Scott
> >> How about "query and response extensions" ?
> > That would exclude the core protocol specifications. Is this
better?
> >
> > "The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of
strings, each of which describes a query or response specification supported by
the server."
>
> OK. I wrote "extensions" in my previous message to mean "in addition
to
> rdap_level_0".
>
> Mario
>
> >
> > Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
