Hi, Sami Here from D3serve Labs. Greatly Appreciate everyone's feedback. >From What I've read it seems that what I've perceived as discrepancies may be caused by: - The differences between RFC-7483 and RFC-9083. - The Huge Difference in response size from different RDAP APIs, due to a big number of optional properties in the JSON Object.
I wanted to point out that I only suggested json-schema as it is a JSON response, but the idea is that there should be a schema that allows developers to integrate it easily into their code, (so maybe something like; YAML Schema, XML Schema, XML DTD and so on ...) and I'm sure there are tools that allow the user to convert from one schema format to another one. As a full-stack developer, going through the whole RFC-9083, just to know how to handle a single object could be a little time-consuming when you're working on a time-constrained project, especially when it keeps referencing different RFCs (like 7483, 7095, 8288, ...). Not to mention that these RFCs heavily depend on BNF, Luckily I'm well acquainted with BNF because of my engineering background, but I know that a lot of developers are not familiar with it. And this also means that any other developer on the project would have to also read through it if they want to use it. But when using a schema you can generate a type-safe code that would have documentation included that could be easily accessed in the IDE. For example; I could easily generate Typescript Interfaces from JSON schema, another example is you can generate Java classes from JSON schema, and so on... (Due to the dependence of OpenApi on JSON schema, you can almost find a generator for any language). Also, I can safely access properties from the response, because I'll know which properties are optional and which are required. for now, I think my best option would be to use conformance tools as suggested by Mr.Andrew Newton Thank you everyone for your responses and I hope I didn't bother anyone with my inquiries. Much Appreciated, Sami Mis'hal On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 8:56 PM Andrew Newton <a...@hxr.us> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:05 PM Mario Loffredo > <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> wrote: > > > > AFAIU, the definition of a standard JSON data description language has > been a controversial matter for long. To my knowledge, the only DDL > published as RFC that could work is CDDL [RFC8610]. It was primarily > created for CBOR but it works for JSON too. > > > > Mario basically summed up the issue. I was involved in trying to get > the IETF to do something here but there was no movement. There were > many reasons: > 1. JSON Schema seemed to be a moving target. > 2. Something something about Yang. > 3. At the time (and it may still be true), RDAP was by far the most > complex example of JSON in the IETF. Everything else was much, much > simpler and did not need a schema language. > 4. Schema languages give a false sense of conformance. Conformance > tools are far more important. > > Therefore the default position became "use CDDL". > > My experience with RDAP mirrors #4. Most conformance issues aren't > about the JSON unless we're talking about jCard, for which schema > languages are basically useless anyway. > > I would recommend using a conformance tool such as this one: > https://github.com/icann/rdap-conformance-tool > > Also, ARIN's NicInfo had an RFC 7483 checker for JCR, which is > superior to JSON Schema (or at least was). > > -andy >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
