Hi Jim,
Il 03/06/2024 20:05, James Galvin ha scritto:
It is a great thing that we have such interest in preparing for extended
technical discussions at this next REGEXT meeting.
We have until Friday, 7 June, to make adjustments to the request.
Would folks please send suggested agenda items to the list with a desire for
how much time you’d like to spend talking about them?
Would also like to talk about the future of rdap-jscontact.
If there is no interest from the WG in moving the document forward, have
no problem to drop it any time but I would like the WG to take a clear
position.
I speak on my behalf but I imagine that Gavin as co-author agrees on that.
That said, I make some considerations here below:
- yesterday, in his presentation
<https://regiops.net/sites/default/files/documents/8-ROW13-Simon%20Fernandez-WHOIS%20Right%3F%20An%20Analysis%20of%20WHOIS%20and%20RDAP%20Consistency.pdf>
at ROW about WHOIS vs RDAP inconsistencies, Simon Fernandez said that
the jCard format is chaotic and hardly parseable. This is another
demontration that jCard is considered unfit and we should replace it
with another one more manageable.
- in light of Andy's feedback on RFC9537 and repeating what I had
already written in this thread
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/I-CG4IwNauiU-6KiNwvaaPU5msQ/>,
do believe that representing collections in contact data through maps
instead of arrays (or worse arrays of arrays) would greatly simplify the
JSONPath expressions used in redaction as the name selector would be
mostly used in place of index selectors and filters
- the obligation/recommendation included in NIS2 about avoiding contact
data duplication makes me envisage that in the future we could have
validated contacts shared among the registries and those contacts will
be likely identified through universal identifiers. As a result of this,
a contact data format including a universal identifier could be useful.
Hope it could be helpful to resume the discussion about using JSContact
or any other well-structured contact data format in RDAP.
Best,
Mario
I know I have my own ideas but I do think it’s important to hear from the
working group first.
Antoin and I will make an adjustment to the requested time based on what folks
want to move forward with.
Thanks!
Jim
On 3 Jun 2024, at 10:40, IETF Meeting Session Request Tool wrote:
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Antoin Verschuren, a
Chair of the REGEXT Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: Registration Protocols Extensions
Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area
Session Requester: Antoin Verschuren
Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s): 2 Hours
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid:
Chair conflict: dnsop dance saag sidrops savnet grow deleg
Key participant conflict: dispatch secdispatch
Participants who must be present:
Resources Requested:
Special Requests:
---------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list --regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email toregext-le...@ietf.org
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
Address: 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
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
