Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Il 27/06/2022 20:01, Gould, James ha scritto:
>
> Scott,
>
> The "including a unique string literal value registered in the IANA 
> RDAP Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480]" could be the prefix 
> value "lunarNIC", where the “lunarNIC_level_0” value does include the 
> unique string literal value “lunarNIC” registered in the IANA RDAP 
> Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480].  The RFCs refer to 
> identifiers, prefixes, and now unique string literal values. They are 
> very non-specific and open to interpretation.
>
Agreed.

The incipit of section 4.1 of RFC9083 seems too generic to me either.

The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings,
    each providing*a hint*  as to the specifications used in the
    construction of the response.

It doesn't formally define how rdapConformance tags should be generated 
starting from IANA registered values.

> If we were to support Approach B, my recommendation for the errata 
> change to RFC 9083 would be to change section 4.1 to read:
>
> …
>
> When custom JSON values are inserted into responses,
>
> conformance to those custom specifications MUST be indicated by
>
> including unique *prefix identifiers* registered in the IANA RDAP
>
> Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480]. *The conformance value *
>
> *MUST match or be prefixed with a registered unique prefix identifier. *
>
> For example, if the fictional Registry of the Moon wants to signify 
> that their JSON
>
> responses are conformant with their registered extensions, *the 
> conformance value *
>
> *might be "lunarNIC_level_0" that uses the registered “lunarNIC” 
> prefix identifier*.
>
> *…*
>
> If normative language can’t be used in the errata change, then the 
> second sentence could read “A conformance value matches or is prefixed 
> with a registered unique prefix identifier”.  The question is how we 
> address the inclusion of a non-prefix identifier, such as 
> “icann_rdap_response_profile_0” in the RDAP Extensions Registry, which 
> defines policy and not new extension elements.
>
> I believe a separate draft will be needed to fully define creating the 
> various forms of RDAP extensions, which includes versioning.
>
Agreed.

Mario

> -- 
>
> JG
>
> James Gould
>
> Fellow Engineer
>
> [e-mail] 
> <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[e-mail]>
>
> 703-948-3271
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
> On 6/27/22, 12:54 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" 
> <shollenbeck=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>
>     > From: Gould, James <jgould=[e-mail]>
>
>     > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 12:37 PM
>
>     > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail];
>
>     > [e-mail]
>
>     > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP 
> Extensions
>
>     > Approach Analysis v2)
>
>     >
>
>     > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do 
> not click
>
>     > links
>
>     > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
> content
>
>     > is safe.
>
>     >
>
>     > Scott,
>
>     >
>
>     > The question is how we handle versioning, which is an aspect not 
> covered in
>
>     > the existing RFCs.  The only version reference is in the RDAP 
> Conformance
>
>     > definition in section 4.1 of RFC 9083 with "rdap_level_0" and
>
>     > "lunarNIC_level_0".  If the use of "lunarNIC_level_0" was a 
> mistake, then
>
>     > versioning is completely absent for extensions.  A client can 
> easily do a
>
>     > regular expression match with the RDAP conformance values since the
>
>     > prefixes should be unique.  The reference to "The extension 
> identifier is
>
>     > used as a prefix in JSON names and as a prefix of path segments 
> in RDAP
>
>     > URLs" in RFC 7480 simply defines the primary key in the RDAP 
> Extensions
>
>     > Registry and doesn't imply anything about the RDAP Conformance 
> value in
>
>     > RFC 9083.
>
>     [SAH] Sorry, but "doesn't imply anything about the RDAP 
> Conformance value in
>
>     RFC 9083" is just not true. 7480 describes that prefix as being 
> registered
>
>     with IANA and being used to prefix extension elements. 9083 says 
> "When custom
>
>     JSON values are inserted into responses, conformance to those custom
>
>     specifications MUST be indicated by including a unique string 
> literal value
>
>     registered in the IANA RDAP Extensions registry specified in 
> [RFC7480]".
>
>     That's clear linkage.
>
>     I've said earlier that the errata change to 9083 could be from 
> "lunarNIC" to
>
>     "lunarNIC_level_0" to make the examples consistent. That change 
> would also
>
>     demonstrate that version information can be included in registered 
> prefixes.
>
>     Scott
>
-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: [phone]
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo