Hi Mario, On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 07:00:06PM +0200, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline. > > Il 09/09/2020 20:47, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker ha scritto: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: Discuss > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > As was the case for Murray, I'm unconvinced that I have understood what > > Section 3 intended to convey. However, I am balloting Discuss because > > my current best understanding is for a statement that seems inconsistent > > with my understanding of how the partial response mechanism works. In > > particular, how would the topmost objects be returned according to > > different field sets, if there's only a single query parameter and (I > > assume) all topmost objects are the results of the same single query? > > > Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Obviously, all the objects reutrned > by a server in response to a search are provided according the same > field set. What the Secion 3 aims to convey is that servers are free to > represent relationships between the parent objects and child objects in > the field sets as they want. For example, an RDAP profile could defne a > "brief" field set for the response to a /domains search that don't > include any information about the nameservers. Instead, in another RDAP > profile the "brief" field set for the response to a /domains search > could return the same information about the namservers as returned by > the "brief" field set defined for the response to a /nameservers search. > > Therefore, the list of fields of a short response to a /nameservers > search couldn't be the same as the list of fields for each nameserver > included in a short response to a /domains search. > > Obviously, to achieve the largest interoperability, it's logical to > expect that the policy about how to represent the information about > relationships should be quite similar in the various RDAP profiles. But > this is something out of the scope of the document. > > Hope this make the rationale of Section 3 more clear.
Ah, I see the source of my confusion now -- "could be returned according to different field sets" means that the structure of the topmost object returned will vary with the field set in use, and "could be applied to their related objects" means that it's permitted (expected, perhaps) for a field set definition to include a specification for what fields of related objects are returned with the query (if any related objects are returned at all). Thanks for the clarification! If I might propose an alternate wording for your consideration: Representation of second level objects within a field set produces additional considerations. Since the representation of the topmost returned objects will vary according to the field set in use, the response may contain no relationships (e.g., for an abbreviated field set) or may contain associated objects as in a normal RDAP query response. Each field set can indicate the format of the additional objects to be returned, in the same manner that the format of the topmost objects is controlled by the field set. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
