On 6/18/24 08:41, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Because the RDAP extensions seem to be piling up and we seem to have
differing views about their implementations. I think RFC 9537 is a good
example of this... an implementation report would have been very beneficial
as we are now being told the JSONPath portions are completely optional
though the RFC doesn't read that way at all.
[SAH] I agree that an implementation report would have been helpful. The
JSONPath portions are marked as OPTIONAL, but experience is showing us that the
text could be clearer about what that means. We could address that issue with a
-bis draft once we have a better handle on all needed updates.
Scott
A -bis or something is needed. But as for JSONPath being OPTIONAL, this
is from Section 4.2:
The "postPath" member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist in
the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method (Section
3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method (Section 3.3), and the
Redaction by Replacement Value Method (Section 3.4).
Section 4.2 is clearly describing a data structure that takes different
forms based on the redaction method because the various paths only have
meaning in certain contexts. The OPTIONALs are there to allow the
structure to be re-used.
I realize you asked me about this in another thread and I gave you an
answer to a different issue. My apologies.
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
