Hi Mario,
Am 29.11.22 um 07:46 schrieb Mario Loffredo:
Hi Pawel,
Il 28/11/2022 22:02, Pawel Kowalik ha scritto:
Hi Mario,
My comment inline.
Am 28.11.22 um 21:20 schrieb Mario Loffredo:
"A custom reverse search property MUST NOT collide with a
registered reverse
search property and MUST NOT match an RDAP property, or any of
its variants,
matched by a registered reverse search property."
[PK] not sure about the second MUST NOT if it's not too hard. What
kind of harm we are trying to prevent, when 2 reverse search
properties match the same RDAP property?
I am thinking of a scenario, where the server defines a custom
property, then it gets registered under a different name - the
server may wish to keep both for back compatibility.
[ML] Just the opposite harm. A registered property having the same
name of a custom property but they refer to different RDAP properties.
[PK2] OK, this one I agree, but this is the first part "A custom
reverse search property MUST NOT collide with a registered reverse
search property", isn't it?
My comment was referring to the second part, where, if I read it
right, it would be forbidden to match a custom reverse search
property to same field as any of already registered ones.
[ML] In my opinion, both the misuses are harmful. For the sake of
increasing interoperability, the case of two reverse search properties
mapping the same RDAP property must be avoided as well.
[PK3] Sure, this must not happen on the level of registered reverse
search properties, to have duplicated registered names pointing to the
same property. I think it should be at least allowed (ergo SHOULD NOT
instead of MUST NOT) to have such duplicates with custom property which
is local and makes no harm to the interoperability. There is a clear
use-case behind which is a natural consequence of experimental nature of
custom reverse search properties. See the scenario I mentioned 2 comment
earlier.
The only admissible case should be when the same name is used to map
two RDAP properties but one is an equivalent representation of the
other in another format (i.e. the entity full name can be represented
both in jCard and in JSContact but both are used to represent the same
information).
[PK3] Fully agree here.
Kind Regards,
Pawel
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
