Hi Jim,Again, the proposal for 1-RTT model is that the client would put a range of versions it supports into a request and the server would put best efforts to fulfil it. Like ?versioning=versioning-0.3-versioning-0.9,versioning-1.0+. Current draft allows listing all supported versions one by one, but this list may grow big in this case. The draft is not clear about what to do if server does not support the requested version. Say server supports 0.3 (default) and 0.9 and client requests 0.6. It would be better for the client that the server responds with 0.9 (best fitting compatible version with 0.6) rather than with default 0.3.
Also a redirect target server can deliver the best fitting response rather than falling back to default.
Kind Regards, Pawel On 21.11.24 19:26, Gould, James wrote:
Pawel,The server has a default set of extensions with or without the versioning extension and will return the defaults. I don’t see your concern with exposing the supported extension versions in the help response, since it really doesn’t require a 2-RTT flow. The lazily option includes the sub-option of manually using the meta-data to address an error. If there was no versioning extension, there would be no meta-data within RDAP to use to determine the root cause of the extension issue when the server supports more than one version of an extension at a time.The versioning extension is optional for the RDAP client to implement, as should be the case for other RDAP extensions, provides help information in the help response per RFC 9082, and the help information can be used at any time automatically or manually when needed. Introducing an optional RDAP extension that provides extra meta-data in the help response in no way implies the need for a 2-RTT flow.Thanks, -- JG cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40 *James Gould *Fellow Engineerjgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> *From: *"kowa...@denic.de" <kowa...@denic.de> *Date: *Thursday, November 21, 2024 at 1:16 PM*To: *James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] RDAP versioning - on client-server interactions and 2-RTT flowHi Jim, Got it. These are all optimisations of 2-RTT model.I am missing your feedback to my 1-RTT proposal and risks related to redirects in 2-RTT scenario.Kind Regards, Pawel On 21.11.24 19:00, Gould, James wrote: Pawel, The client has multiple options: 1. Proactively leverage the versioning help with every query (2-RTT) or a pre-defined intervals to keep the configuration accurate. 1. I don’t see the extension versions changing frequently and the versioning extension does support pre-publishing support for an extension version to the client, so my recommendation would be to check it daily or even less frequently in a single client. 2. Lazily leverage the versioning help when there is an identified extension version issue 1. This could be automated with the first error and then stored with the correct extension versioning information for subsequent queries. 2. This could be manual when an error is reported, and operations uses the versioning help to diagnose the issue for a fix. There are probably many additional options, where having the meta-data along in the versioning help (e.g., “versioning_help” member) with the extension versioning detail with each response (e.g., “versioning” member) should provide value with any RDAP client to address extension compatibility issues automatically or manually. Thanks,--JG cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40 *James Gould *Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://secure-web.cisco.com/11KWO61ONP3_D4UFnzav5ddD672ljzIQFbvruzfwmY-UufG83Q9qeOASRq90wZO8rDn82Gl4ezO8LFsywN9iX3eaC5gYTNS0Ozvj6CU2GBLBBSRCuB6e9EGJKiN-NcQtPiB-HOey2X25gQ3_nyB0nxGbKVW4I55_OmmuVgZhhNnOt8694hHAgDJ3cpDNm5pqCcCUsdenKtJtfBm-zU1I_FIaakyB7wjBqGUrVlscG4wTNhTveqTvx8r4FVlGeYNJygo_yFL8fQACGVkqOV9ksrUYTvvW5KIx1v_eOO6w4acI/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F> *From: *"kowa...@denic.de" <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> *Date: *Thursday, November 21, 2024 at 12:36 PM *To: *James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com> <mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <mailto:regext@ietf.org> <regext@ietf.org> <mailto:regext@ietf.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] RDAP versioning - on client-server interactions and 2-RTT flow Hi Jim, If the client would like to benefit from machine readable version information from versioning extension, there is no way around 2-RTT. If not, then this extension is basically of no practical meaning to such client, so not really worth considering. Kind Regards, Pawel On 21.11.24 18:29, Gould, James wrote: Pawel,RFC 9082 states the following for the Help Path Segment:The help path segment can be used to request helpful information (command syntax, terms of service, privacy policy, rate-limiting policy, supported authentication methods, supported extensions, technical support contact, etc.) from an RDAP server. The response to "help" should provide basic information that a client needs to successfully use the service.This is exactly what the versioning extension is doing in the "versioning_help" member, by providing help information on supported extensions. A client is not required to use the versioning extension to perform queries, since the server does have a default extension version that is specified in the "versioning_help" member. If a client does run into an extension compatibility issue, it could use the help command to programmically (lazily) or manually determine the root cause of the issue for resolution.There is no requirement or expectation that an RDAP client implement 2-RTT.Thanks,--JGJames Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> <mailto:applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com>703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1i4F4XceuHxhs-b9i0KfN2SASQv-TqK69F2z5EdAqIhCxvhNvC3WwTfK6ANtRgjWLd-R8d-Cqyv-UD-CDH530aIlcZGBWm2yG1KKtbY1TC3EuirdyZQMdD6m8QZxEis3VeDni07o4rQRu8oP6EsH75zHCBqovfVVxdTQR2RG4TWq-JSOiQGFBxZo-rT98XqthLeXHhlNAGdU4WeXMwzWqT6EUQND3wycz-A1IZhl6TZs0OrUj1i16L6RWb2XC51tpxYvBo1-crVyGevQ5AGLM6MWtAFYuGnkJXhUPgBL98fI/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>On 11/21/24, 12:19 PM, "Pawel Kowalik" <kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de> <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>> wrote:Hi,Thinking of interactions between the client and server that versioning draft assumes I think we are heading towards 2-RTT model for every request.Step 1: The client makes an HTTP GET request to the /help endpoint of the RDAP server. Step 2: The response is processed to extract rdapConformance and versioning. Step 3: Compare the server's supported extensions and versions with those supported by the client. Step 4: If compatible configurations are found, the client makes target request to a resource endpoint (e.g., domain/foo.com), using headers or query parameters to specify the desired configuration.So we have 2 full RTTs. Of course a client can cache it for some time but not forever, as the server may change at any time its configuration. In a cold state or a client without capability to cache this will be always 2-RTT if the client would like to be aware of the versions.I don't think this is in line with rfc7480, which assumes "a client implementation should be possible using common operating system scripting tools (e.g., bash and wget)". Also not with the usage pattern defined in Section 1. None of it is normative, however I would not just ignore it without discussing consequences of going this way.I would like to see more that versioning draft would assume 1-RTT model as a primary use-case, so that the client would put a range of versions it supports into a request and the server would put best efforts to fulfil it. This would be also more "redirect friendly", so that a redirected request to another server (no matter if with query parameters or headers) would have the same information about client capabilities and able to serve the response as opposed to getting a request for configuration crafted for the origin server of a redirect.Kind Regards,Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
