Scott, I foresee the need for defining new JSON Values Registry Type values that are associated with new RDAP extensions. It looks like draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted is the first to do this for the three new types "redacted name", "redacted reason", and "redacted expression language". Without extensibility of the JSON Values Registry Type values, the extensions will need to update RFC 7083, extensions will need to setup their own RDAP JSON Value-like registries, or extensions won't register anything at all. I view the JSON Values Registry as providing a central place to normalize and help RDAP clients understand the meaning of the values in the RDAP responses. There is no way that RFC 7083 can foresee the members and types needed by RDAP extensions. The Expert Review policy in RFC 8126 is perfect to support a variety of use cases to register RDAP JSON response values, but the fixed number of Type values won't meet the need. Can a new Type value be defined for a proprietary RDAP extension, which could not update RFC 7083 to add the registrations. My concern is that the registrations will not be done at the determinate of RDAP clients.
Does the sentence in section 10.2 "JSON Values Registry" "This new registry is for use in the notices and remarks (Section 4.3), status (Section 4.6), role (Section 5.1), event action (Section 4.5), and domain variant relation (Section 5.3) fields specified in RDAP" only allow for the registration of that static list of types, considering that it's not normative (e.g., This new registry MUST only be used in...")? In addition, the language for the Type entry is "the type of value being registered. It should be one of the following:", where there is no normative MUST with the static list of type values. My recommendation is to leave the addition of registration in the JSON Values Registry with the inclusion of new Type values up to the Expert Review policy and don't go down the path of updating RFC 7083. The experts can help assess the applicability of the registrations without added restriction of having to update RFC 7083 to do so. The registration will include the associated RFC reference in them, so there should be no question where the Type and entries originated from. -- JG 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/> On 9/8/23, 8:24 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Dong via RT <drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org > <mailto:drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org>> > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 5:20 PM > Cc: a...@hxr.us <mailto:a...@hxr.us>; Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenb...@verisign.com <mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>>; > regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IANA #1280008] expert review for draft-ietf-regext- > rdap-redacted (rdap-json-values) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Dear Andy and Scott (cc: regext WG), > > As the designated experts for the RDAP JSON Values registry, can you review > the proposed registration, "jsonpath", in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14 > for us? Please see: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1acFzngCLvKfZLNfpnH7RYScna5YF7RNSvByaIMx4uQ_GMSzLP1JTeF5IAajEwWZ0m2Km4KULcvKc_l26ZPblDjvZ7ollEHp8nJhIU-gm9lmydsEmcUowpyJ4a4t-8UtgsRSCaUWQVEewJKgGG-pqcZIqk20Ky1yy03sranckYSmyamF_N3pZxEcJzIrjjgY9wHe7-Md1hNZrKLIdCIvncT9P3_ZU4aCkMRt0ugwByqxugLoGNmg0VOcs3aUqr2_U9GLdsycyc9JEXp3qr18wLv8UDVcxXoWSum-uPYQ7GBs/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted%2F > > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1acFzngCLvKfZLNfpnH7RYScna5YF7RNSvByaIMx4uQ_GMSzLP1JTeF5IAajEwWZ0m2Km4KULcvKc_l26ZPblDjvZ7ollEHp8nJhIU-gm9lmydsEmcUowpyJ4a4t-8UtgsRSCaUWQVEewJKgGG-pqcZIqk20Ky1yy03sranckYSmyamF_N3pZxEcJzIrjjgY9wHe7-Md1hNZrKLIdCIvncT9P3_ZU4aCkMRt0ugwByqxugLoGNmg0VOcs3aUqr2_U9GLdsycyc9JEXp3qr18wLv8UDVcxXoWSum-uPYQ7GBs/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted%2F> [SAH] I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this since both Andy and I have reviewed this document during its development in the regext working group, but I think I've found a small issue. RFC 9083 defines a set of "type" values for use in the RDAP JSON values registry. draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted defines three additional type values, which means it's updating RFC 9083 and the set of type values allowed for use in the registry. The document needs to be clear about the fact that it's updating 9083, which it doesn't currently do. This would also mean that the registry itself will need to be update to note that this RFC-to-be is one of the references that defines the structure of the registry. Having said that, the requested addition to the registry looks fine to me. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1JNgL-NYvBqJdow8e-goAyuMHw1PoIzPIkUCI4-CwBaVnClOYd_8AJUIinj4iz4cHPbITAjxVGCZ3fNuySDf_qdngWWq21Rujt5s5UdxA3hS2wgt3r6w9CDfTCC6NJGvn9Xixb11tpLLijqgbpmjUC-RNXaEf9UU5OYCoU8r0xaywiELh3CeRQLYO9qs1uAtwm3r99mgJCb1QxD6wY4NeebAKo9pZgxwXC6xGIvq_fzJYzM7ojqaMNFAIjZw3odo_FMA08QO65HAP6JPWjR42wGK4qOX4lc0MHFC07Hm9zUo/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1JNgL-NYvBqJdow8e-goAyuMHw1PoIzPIkUCI4-CwBaVnClOYd_8AJUIinj4iz4cHPbITAjxVGCZ3fNuySDf_qdngWWq21Rujt5s5UdxA3hS2wgt3r6w9CDfTCC6NJGvn9Xixb11tpLLijqgbpmjUC-RNXaEf9UU5OYCoU8r0xaywiELh3CeRQLYO9qs1uAtwm3r99mgJCb1QxD6wY4NeebAKo9pZgxwXC6xGIvq_fzJYzM7ojqaMNFAIjZw3odo_FMA08QO65HAP6JPWjR42wGK4qOX4lc0MHFC07Hm9zUo/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
