Il 04/10/2024 01:12, Tom Harrison ha scritto:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 02:51:47PM +0000, Jasdip Singh wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 08:19:22AM -0400, Andy Newton wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 03:06:26PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
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.
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.
I had the same understanding as Jasdip, i.e. that profile/marker
identifiers are necessary for a client to "understand the semantic
meaning of the content within the JSON". Maybe a formulation like
"understand the semantic meaning of the response" would work better?
I simply interpret "understand the semantic meaning of the content
within the JSON" as "understand the JSON values" .
Mario
-Tom
_______________________________________________
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
