HI Scott,
Il 15/08/2023 16:23, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
Our AD’s review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-23 noted that all of
the members of the farv1_session" data structure are OPTIONAL. As
such, a completely empty data structure is syntactically valid, but is
it realistic? Does it make sense for at least one of the members to be
REQUIRED, perhaps the “sessionInfo” object?
Requiring the "sessionInfo" object without changing the text of Section
5.2.3 would make the spec inconsistent.
The response to this request MUST be a valid RDAP response, per RFC 9083
[RFC9083 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>]. It MUST NOT include
any members that relate to a specific RDAP object type (e.g. "events",
"status"). In addition, the response MAY include an indication of the
requested operation's success or failure in the "notices" data
structure. If successful, the response MUST include a "farv1_session"
data structure that includes a "sessionInfo" object and an OPTIONAL
"userClaims" object. If unsuccessful, the response MUST include a
"farv1_session" data structure that omits the "userClaims" and
"sessionInfo" objects.
Mario
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
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
