From: Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us>
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 8:19 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>,
regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
2.4.6:
"A strict interpretation of this wording where "construction of the response"
refers to the JSON structure only would rule out the use of Section 2.1.1
extension identifiers, which are in common use in RDAP.", and "For responses to
queries other than "/help", a response MUST include in the "rdapConformance"
array only those extension identifiers necessary for a client to deserialize
the JSON and understand the semantic meaning of the content within the JSON,
and each extension identifier MUST be free from conflict with the other
identifiers with respect to their syntax and semantics."
I'm a little confused by the text in this section. Is it saying the profile
identifiers should be included in the "rdapConformance" array, or not? Profile
identifiers do serve a valuable purpose in terms of understanding how the
response should be interpreted after it's been deserialized ("understand the
semantic meaning of the content within the JSON"), so I *think* this text is
saying that they MUST be included. Is that the case?
Yup, that's confusing... and also somewhat contradictory. This was an attempt
to clarify the list discussion about what it means to return extension
identifiers in the rdapConformance array for non /help queries. Obviously this
needs clean up.
As written, this says that only the extensions used to interpret the JSON are
to be in rdapConformance. However, the first sentence notes that marker and
profile extensions are in common use today, but those don't meet the definition
of extensions used to interpret the JSON.
I'd like to know what my co-authors think, but I believe this is overly
restrictive as extensions influence more than just the JSON... they also
indicate what can be queried and semantics of things like links.
[JS] To Scott’s question about profile/marker identifiers, yes, they must be
included in the “rdapConformance” array since they contribute to the “semantic
meaning of the content within the JSON”. As for Andy’s point of “also indicate
what can be queried”, fair enough, the current text does not explicitly say
that, but any response implies some query to start with. The “semantic meaning”
phrase also helps cover “semantics of things like links”. But, if having some
additional text helps clarify these further, sure.
Jasdip
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
