On 6/17/24 08:11, Gould, James wrote:
JG - I agree that this language in the abstract could be better, but the
abstract does not override the content of the entire specification and is
factual. The extension explicitly identifies the redacted RDAP response fields
and JSONPath is the default expression language. The working group, the
co-editors, and you as the document shepherd could have made this sentence
better.
James, I don't think this type of comment is appropriate. It is
accusatory in nature and sets the wrong tone, especially if we want
others to volunteer as document shepherds. I did take over as document
shepherd from another participant on this RFC as I wanted to see it
published (and I have volunteered as shepherd on multiple documents
since). I have spent a considerable amount of time on RFC 9537, creating
a GitHub repository of test cases, overseeing two development teams for
two clients, and adding 9537 capabilities to a server. The issues I have
brought forward are not trivial, and the finger-pointing is not appreciated.
Regarding some of the other arguments made in the various emails:
1. It is true that section 4.2 states as OPTIONAL the various JSONPath
attributes, but this is also 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. This is reflected in EVERY example in the RFC.
2. You have stated the JSONPath expressions may or may not be useful and
that we need to rely on implementation experience to determine their
utility (this is paraphrasing, but it is also implied given the argument
that they are completely optional). From this very thread:
On 6/17/24 08:11, Gould, James wrote:
JG - There may be servers and clients that do decide to implement the JSONPath
expressions, but time will tell. A new JSON expression language may be defined
that is better suited as well, where JSONPath is the best match right now.
If this is true, their defined usage with respect to redaction should
not be in a standards track document. That is more appropriate for the
Experimental track.
3. You state above the extension "explicitly identifies" the redacted
response fields. Explicitly means "fully revealed or expressed without
vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning
or intent." If the JSONPath is optional, how can that be explicit?
-andy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
