Hi Benjamin,
thanks a lot for your reply. Please find my comment below.
Il 10/09/2020 22:23, Benjamin Kaduk ha scritto:
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.
[ML] Sounds good. I rewrite Section 3. Thanks a lot for your suggestion.
Best,
Mario
Thanks,
Ben
--
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
