Hi all,
as a consequence of last discussion about rdapConformance, I propose to
update RFC7483bis in order to clarify that rdapConformance in the help
response must be used to signal the conformances with all the
specifications implemented by the RDAP server. For any other response,
rdapConformance must provide only hints as to the specifications used in
the construction of the response.
Additionally, I wonder whether or not the rdapConformance values should
be returned according to the user profile. Does an RDAP user really need
to know about services that he won't be able to request?
Best,
Mario
-------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Oggetto: Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search
Data: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:12:36 +0200
Mittente: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it>
A: Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net>, Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com>,
regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org>
Hi all,
if I understood well the rdapConformance content in the help response
should be different from that included in the other responses. Right?
I misunderstood Scott's proposal as a mean by which a server could
inform a client about the supported features any time regardless the
response content.
In that sense, I proposed the server could distinguish the
rdapConformance content according the user profile.
I have no objection to this solution but I think that the two cases
above should be outlined in RFC7483bis.
Best,
Mario
Il 31/07/2020 18:50, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
Agree with Patrick's points about rdapConformance in the help response
informing about all capabilities and rdapConformance being more
specific for a particular query response.
Jasdip
On 7/31/20, 12:29 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 11:21, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Note "supported extensions". This is why I'm saying that we need to
> register all extensions with IANA
I agree.
> and include them in the
> rdapConformance data structure even if they don't describe a response
> extension.
I agree, everything should be listed in the reply to an help query.
I am just saying that for any other reply that is a specific one on a
specific resource
then the rdapConformance should just list the "extensions" needed to
understand this
specific response, and not list absolutely all extensions the server
knows about
(and that are irrelevant for this specific response).
The list of what is written in the response should certainly not be
just server policy,
especially if there is no automated way to learn about this policy.
Otherwise if you include
options like that (the list presented might be the list of all server
extensions OR only the subset needed for this specific response) AND
there is no way for the client to know which
case he is in, it immediately creates interoperability problems. I
prefer no such options
and the protocol clearly defining the content. Or if such options are
really needed
(if help response is always all extensions, and any other response is
just the specific extensions needed, then nothing more is needed),
there should be a signal to know which
case we are in.
> The help response should include supported
> extensions that are available to that client.
Yes, the help response allows to "discover" all possible extensions
from a specific client.
--
Patrick Mevzek
p...@dotandco.com
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
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
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
