Re: [calsify] JSContact in RDAP

[Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 3:31 PM, Mario Loffredo wrote:
> Il 17/01/2023 09:59, Robert Stepanek ha scritto:
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023, at 7:05 PM, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>> 
>> Is the only goal to not allow correlating JSContact objects by uid? If so, I do not understand why a random uuid4 per request does not resolve that issue. Or is it also important to signal to the recipient that the uid property value is redacted? In that case, how about setting the nil uuid (all bits set to zero)?
> Based on what is described in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted, the RDAP server signals the client about the redacted response fields by including them in the "redacted" array.
> 

Thanks, that explains it better to me. In this case I think it is reasonable that the RDAP spec allows to omit mandatory properties, including "uid". The "redacted" array signals to the recipient that this is a partial JSContact object anyway. Only if the JSContact object is supposed to be complete, then omitting the "uid" would be invalid.

I say we keep "uid" mandatory in the JSContact spec, unless someone *now* tells about any other use case where this is not appropriate.