Rick, Thank you for doing a detailed review of the draft. I include responses to your feedback embedded below.
-- JG [cid:image001.png@01D887B2.657F4E40] James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Rick Wilhelm <rwilh...@pir.org> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:51 PM To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>, James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com> Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXTERNAL] [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-07.txt Jim, et al, While there is clearly work going on to determine a direction related to the conformance values, I wanted to invest some time to give a careful review of the current rdap-redacted draft to have it better prepared to progress after the WG comes to some consensus. JG – I also want to get to a target approach for the conformance values. Look at the mailing list posting https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/fIA70fb4qqQGD9G1u4rk7aKrFTc/ for a break down and example of each of the approaches. As noted in that message, I prefer Approach C, but I believe Approach B is a reasonable compromise for Approach A and C. Please reply to that thread if you have a preference. Overall, I think that this draft looks really good. I’m hoping that we can figure out the conformance thing soon. In that context, and in the order of the document, here is some feedback. Most of these are small, trending toward nit. 1. Introduction Regarding: A redacted RDAP field is one that has data removed from the RDAP response due to the lack of client privilege to receive the field. As has been discussed elsewhere and is presented in this document, the concept of “redaction” is broader than “removal” and also includes “edit”. Additionally, there may be any number of reasons why a response would be redacted (which would most certainly include “lack of client privilege”, but could also include other reasons. To that end, I would suggest the following edit: A redacted RDAP field is one that has data in the RDAP response edited due to policy, for example, the lack of client privilege to receive the field. JG – I believe that edited is not descriptive enough. How about including the case of replacement and incorporate your more generic language on the reason with: A redacted RDAP field is one that has data removed or replaced in the RDAP response due to server policy, such as the lack of client privilege to receive the field. 3. Redaction Methods Regarding: The redaction of RDAP fields fall into the two categories of Redaction by Removal Method (Section 3.1) and Redaction by Empty Value Method (Section 3.2), defined in the following sub-sections. I think that this paragraph needs updating to account for (the recently added) Section 3.3. As in: The redaction of RDAP fields fall into the two categories of Redaction by Removal Method (Section 3.1), Redaction by Empty Value Method (Section 3.2), and Redaction by Replacement Value Method (Section 3.3), defined in the following sub-sections. JG – Good catch. That does need to be updated to cover the three categories. I believe it’s easy to remove the direct references and simply state: The redaction of RDAP fields fall into the three categories defined in the following sub-sections. 3.1 Redaction by Removal Method Nit: Suggest putting a paragraph break before “An example of redacting…” in order to better separate the example from the normative text. JG – Yes that can be done and it will be more consistent with the other examples. 4.2 “redacted member” Regarding: The "redacted" member MUST be added to the RDAP response when there are redacted fields. Suggest that this is updated to have the MUST unambiguously cover the case when there is exactly 1 redacted field The "redacted" member MUST be added to the RDAP response when there Is one or more redacted fields. JG – That is fine. The “Is” will be a lowercase “is” as in: The "redacted" member MUST be added to the RDAP response when there is one or more redacted fields. Regarding: "method": OPTIONAL redaction method used with "removal" indicating the Redaction By Removal Method (Section 3.1), "emptyValue" indicating the Redaction by Empty Value Method (Section 3.2), and "replacementValue" indicating the Redaction by Replacement Value Method (Section 3.3). The default value is "removal" when not provided. I think that there is punctuation needed and a minor ed in the first line to improve clarity. Suggested edit: "method": OPTIONAL redaction method used; with one of the following values: "removal" indicating the Redaction By Removal Method (Section 3.1), "emptyValue" indicating the Redaction by Empty Value Method (Section 3.2), and "replacementValue" indicating the Redaction by Replacement Value Method (Section 3.3). The default value is "removal" when not provided. JG – Do you believe that the values should be included in a list? I’m thinking that it should. Hope that helps. Questions welcome. Thanks Rick From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org <internet-dra...@ietf.org> Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:46 PM To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org> Cc: regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-07.txt CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are not expecting. A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the IETF. Title : Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response Authors : James Gould David Smith Jody Kolker Roger Carney Filename : draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-07.txt Pages : 37 Date : 2022-05-26 Abstract: This document describes an RDAP extension for explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields, using JSONPath as the default expression language. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1emO4uu4xlB2otHW5q0eTCg1zomz9nS7AX3C78avS_ReK3HIPztjYXy6W5cVH9V1ijcPh8PV_Eth1_yxnmPdua81oh28ct5NQA1RRnNWrQzGisEKSfnxRWppvfiqFRRlK0FFox-rT3hxsDJOiaXB_oiIEdllNZkEmMYqjFf1Aa_AFnOh-mk_9mYdiHh4rAGfeZYc-2QttoqMQhKoSNUuAl8dj2i9GVVfO5GVlIkrFoIMrjijFvU6ic1CvFFXYKFra/https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FocBQC0RPwLiGp2VCOzYRs%3Fdomain%3Ddatatracker.ietf.org> There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-07.html<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1MTseqekckZ6LqYMfhw9wxz2dvcfsfk9NaI8rjzDo-Wi5Y6OcyOau670vvyzVH87NIJZ1tGyJZqRhcK2rRhvUPk1sYfbcGbahQeJdFXEDKnKAbk6CExlSb7eI5JNrMGGN-KB6KcOLn1FRxthopUSS-ZTGKqgK2e6uzehWuqFo_IRghh20W-o9KBmUz5OwdEEDPZdDDsW72N_MIfw_iOIFf0ou_UQAN8QMRrnCG6AcSLz9hs5q15xS2JaWdKCw9KbB/https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FYCfQCgJNR2fADl9H7GDCZ%3Fdomain%3Dietf.org> A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-07<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rs6ZCMhWqCWg2FOn1dDjcNyTNYnIRijbVHGeYuDE-A7XDA00Cc-CxiTPf-qkDDyOYgOw1ipeQd4Dq3sBlPMhhXSkdtdhoBa4jO56dHIRLasPn2ohMVLKkKX0fboG7syGlWyATHgy1lf7U8do9I6UKrc8tntNJi9HUT_M4mmvMR96HzbA2X8nhdFu2HEtiOniTvSQcQqDQz-cyQ3qdTP4VaXfoI6I22R-GGd1xpQ28qB2xqwDW219GdczDZiIPAa8/https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2F_x_zCjRNX8inVj8Cjhvdu%3Fdomain%3Dietf.org> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1KjbxvotupGvZULTnK5Jotwd22SS8jsIg1J1TZrA3GZI2NfSAUqXhSqPb5FbuiW3cYxzROygh9sTDo5bUDoJlKtlJbz4ibcyz53M3tY0DuHnUeRi3fE7LC16gKSpE-NcCQccP_PxVMi31-sqbQPrzhmJ1s7fSjUXdLoDDnOuyQRwG1fYItFMdiuBB-6FZ8PN3wfuBVpPf7VoQth14p5ovyCs1nFSK0VGqpQABoYul7Nnd4ksVWS0O8-Z6PbnL7oBV/https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FwhMrCkRNY7iOPn9SNnQJU%3Fdomain%3Dietf.org>
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
