Hi Jasdip,
seems to me that the majority was so much in favor of both the help
response extension and the ad-hoc IANA registry that the we have been
discussing about their structure for some days and two versions were
published.
Anyway, I do believe that the help extension is appropriate in this case
and seems to me in line with the current WG trend (see other ongoing
documents such as rdap-openid and rdap-versioning) to provide clients
with guidance about both pre-defined and custom optional features a
server supports.
Furthermore, the additonal implementation effort needed in this case to
extend the help response is worthwhile if compared to the benefit.
Finally, looking back to the past, this is not the first time we address
the discovery topic; we have already accomplished it in other RFCs (i.e.
8977 and 8982), though as a recommendation and according to a different
approach.
With hindsight, think it could be useful to follow always the same way
whereas it makes sense in the future and, in the event of bis-versions,
to review the existing RFCs accordingly.
Similar considerations can be made with regard to the usage of an ad-hoc
IANA registry.
Have already said that I don't prefer to use centralized registries but
I don't strongly object to them. So if, as it seems to be emerged from
the discussion, there is a prevailing opinion that an IANA registry
about the reverse search prioperties improves the interoperability, I agree.
Best,
Mario
Il 19/12/2022 16:18, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
Hi.
Per the comments in [1], it would be good to settle if the proposed
discovery and IANA registration of reverse search properties is an
overkill or not. Specifically:
* Is the newly proposed "reverse_search_properties" member in the
help response (section 5) needed?
* Is the newly proposed "RDAP Reverse Search Properties" registry
(section 9.2) needed?
Thanks,
Jasdip
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/baN_jHO32rRLTbzef6B5Rtep29g/
*From: *regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Antoin
Verschuren <ietf=40antoin...@dmarc.ietf.org>
*Date: *Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:04 AM
*To: *"regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
*Subject: *Re: [regext] New version of rdap-reverse-search
Hi all, can all people that commented on
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search since the start of the previous
last call (Tom, Pawel, Jasdip) confirm that all their issues are now
addressed in version 17, so that the document shepherd can confirm
there are no new changes to be expected during WGLC?
Once we have confirmation, we will issue a 3th WGLC when the document
is stable.
Regards,
Jim and Antoin
Op 1 dec. 2022, om 14:24 heeft Mario Loffredo
<mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> het volgende geschreven:
Hi Chairs,
this is to inform you that I'm ready to submit the new
rdap-reverse-search version addressing the feedback provided
during the LC, i.e. reverse searech properties discovery and
registration.
Hopefully, no futher feedback will be provided.
Would like to know how to proceed now.
Should I ask for a new WGLC?
Will you do that?
Best,
Mario
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
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
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
