[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Hi Marc, > On 24 May 2024, at 14:17, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> >> Le 24 mai 2024 à 08:10, Gavin Brown a écrit : >> >> Hi all, >> >> With my RDAP client implementer hat on, I've been ruminating about how the >> users of my client(s)[1] use them, and some anecdata suggests that in >> general

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Hi Jim, > I mirror the other feedback with the concern over duplicating the link > information in the response header that is included in the response body for > the HTTP GET. It would be best just to support the HTTP HEAD. The reason why the link headers are included in the GET response is be

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Hi Jasdip, > On 24 May 2024, at 17:58, Jasdip Singh wrote: > > Hi Gavin, > Can RFC 8982 (RDAP Partial Response) [1] not be leveraged to solve this? RFC 8982 explicitly extends RDAP search queries, not lookup queries, but it does provide a basis for an alternative approach. G. -- Gavin Brown

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Hi Mario, > On 28 May 2024, at 09:23, Mario Loffredo wrote: > > Hi, > here in the following some comments about this extension: > > 1) Don't know how to formally use this extension with HEAD as this method > doesn't return the body. > Hence, it would represent a case where the server returns

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Jasdip, I have option 5, which is to get more implementation experience with RFC 9537. I believe that the ICANN clients can implement RFC 9537 using the required “name” and “method” members in the redacted extension, as I demonstrated with the simple JSON clients. There will be many server im

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Andy, Let me address the issue that you've raised with the use of the "name" members required in RFC 9537: Now, if the client implementer determines that they are, at the time of writing the client, to cross-reference "type" with the IANA registry and hard-code the redaction based on the des

[regext] Simple Redaction

Hi all, I spent some time thinking about how to make the redaction problem less complex by focusing on the places where redaction is most likely to to be found, in "personal data". Within RDAP, that appears to always be conveyed in JSON strings. Reducing the scope reduces the complexity, at l

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

> Le 17 juin 2024 à 07:45, Gavin Brown a écrit : > > Hi Marc, > >> On 24 May 2024, at 14:17, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 24 mai 2024 à 08:10, Gavin Brown a écrit : >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> With my RDAP client implementer hat on, I've been ruminating about how the >>> users of my c

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Hi James, Please find my comments below. Thanks, Jasdip From: Gould, James Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:47 AM To: Jasdip Singh , mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it Cc: regext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-0

[regext] Re: using experimental to move items forward

> -Original Message- > From: Andrew Newton (andy) > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 6:23 AM > To: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] using experimental to move items forward > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachment

[regext] Re: using experimental to move items forward

On 6/17/24 10:25, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: Andrew Newton (andy) Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 6:23 AM To: regext@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] using experimental to move items forward Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not cl

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Jasdip, I provide responses embedded below, prefixed with “JG-“. Thanks, -- JG [cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40] James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com From: Jasdip Singh Date: Monday,

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Hi Marc, > On 17 Jun 2024, at 14:23, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> Le 17 juin 2024 à 07:45, Gavin Brown a écrit : >> >> Hi Marc, >> >>> On 24 May 2024, at 14:17, Marc Blanchet wrote: >>> Le 24 mai 2024 à 08:10, Gavin Brown a écrit : Hi all, With my RDAP client

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Hi, We chose JSONPath for precise pinpointing of fields whose values are fully or partially redacted in an RDAP response. Unfortunately, per Considerations on RFC 9537, it turns out to deficient, especially for prePath scenarios and wildcard and recursive selectors. A normative spec, irrespect

[regext] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-newton-regext-rdap-considerations-on-rfc9537-00.txt

Jasdip, I don’t agree with the statement “Some of these problems may be insurmountable, leaving portions of RFC 9537 non-interoperable between clients and servers, while other problems place a high degree of complexity upon clients.”, which has driven much of the discussion on the mailing list.

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

On 6/17/24 11:02, Gavin Brown wrote: Servers of RDAP data should already have various caching mechanisms (if not, they are in big trouble…) so the hit to a server is insignificant. In my experience, cache hit rates for RDAP is quite low (20-30%), because a common usage pattern is: listOfDoma

[regext] Re: [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt

Good to know, Gavin. :) Jasdip From: Gavin Brown Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:46 AM To: Jasdip Singh Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions Subject: Re: [regext] [Ext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-rdap-referrals-00.txt Hi Jasdip, > On 24 May 2024, at 17:58, Jasdip Singh wrote

[regext] Re: using experimental to move items forward

I have two competing views 1) get rid of time-wasting. If documents something novel in implementations but there are no implementations, it's not very useful work. Experimental and Informational are kind of different. 2) de-facto VETO from incumbency. I am concerned in other WG this is being used