Hi Robert,
please find my comments below.
Il 08/09/2020 12:05, Rob Wilton (rwilton) ha scritto:
Hi Mario,
Please see inline ...
-----Original Message-----
From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
Sent: 07 September 2020 18:04
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-respo...@ietf.org; regext-
cha...@ietf.org; regext@ietf.org; Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net>
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
partial-response-13: (with COMMENT)
Hi Robert,
thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline.
Il 07/09/2020 16:28, Robert Wilton via Datatracker ha scritto:
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-
response/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thank you for this document. I have two minor comments:
2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links
"value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com
&fieldSet=afieldset",
Should "afieldset" be "anotherfieldset"?
[ML] In web linking (RFC8288), the "value" field contains the context
URI and the "target" field contains the target URI in a given relation
with the context URI.
In Figure 2, the context URI is the current view of the results provided
according to the current field set (i.e. "afieldset") while the target
URI is an alternative view provided according another field set (i.e.
"anotherieldset")
[RW]
Ah, yes. Thanks for the clarification/explanation.
5. Negative Answers
Each request including an empty or unsupported "fieldSet" value MUST
produce an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code. Optionally, the
response MAY include additional information regarding the negative
answer in the HTTP entity body.
Given the solution suggests that subsetting metadata may be included in
positive responses, it might be helpful to also include similar metadata
in
negative responses. I.e. rather than just stating that a fieldSet is
invalid,
perhaps there should be a recommendation that the response include the
list of
possible valid values that fieldSet may take?
[ML] I think this pertains to the server policy. RDAP (RFC7483) allows
producers to provide consumers with additional information in error
responses through "notices" and "notices" can include "links".
[RW]
Yes, I agree that server policy may want to restrict what information is
returned on the error case.
Definitively, I would keep the fully compliance with the error response
structure defined in RFC7483.
[RW]
Okay. I agree that having the structure conform to RFC7843 makes sense.
I was sort of thinking of something more like section 6 from RFC 7483. E.g.,
the text could provide an example error response something like:
{
"errorCode": 400,
"title": "FieldSet 'unknown-fieldset' is not a valid FieldSet"
"description":
[
"Supported FieldSet values are 'a-valid-fieldset' and
'another-valid-fieldset'."
]
}
Probably this should only be returned if the request was otherwise valid.
And, I agree that the server could also choose to return valid links as part of
notices.
Do you think that it would be helpful for the document to elaborate beyond
"Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding the negative
answer in the HTTP entity body."?
OK. I would write:
"Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding the supported
fieldSet values in the HTTP entity body."
Besides, I can include something similar to your example as an example
error response.
Does it works for you?
Cheers,
Mario
Regards,
Rob
Looking forward to your reply to my comments.
Best,
Mario
Regards,
Rob
--
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
--
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
