[regext] Re: Comments Regarding draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04

["Andrew Newton (andy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

I think your summation is better than what we have in Section 1.1. We'll 
work to incorporate this and make other changes.

Many thanks for your contribution and review.

WRT to other extensions types, I am unfamiliar with any others.

-andy

On 10/8/24 16:00, Gould, James wrote:
>
> Jasdip,
>
> What I’m thinking is formally defining all known forms of extensions, 
> each with its own section, where there are no questions related to 
> RDAP’s support for each extension form.  Further define how new forms 
> of extensions can be defined.  Should there be an IANA registry of 
> RDAP extension forms / types that can be referenced in defining an 
> extension?  The reason I bring this up is that EPP has a fixed set of 
> extension types, and we ran into an issue during IETF last call is 
> defining a new form, called a Functional Extension, in 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-15 that had to be removed in 
> draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-16.  We could go with a static set of RDAP 
> extension forms, but I believe that would be short-sided, since we 
> can’t foresee all possible forms that are needed.  Below is a modified 
> list from my prior message:
>
>  1. Path Segment
>      1. Path segment for defining a new object in the request, which
>         is covered by RFC 7480 and RFC 9082.  Sub-path segment could
>         be covered here as well or be a form on its own.  RFC 9536
>         with the “reverse_search” sub-path for defining a new verb is
>         interesting and could be covered with the sub-segment
>         extension form.
>  2. JSON Names
>
>      1. JSON names for defining new members in the response, which is
>         covered by RFC 7480 and RFC 9083.
>
>  3. Query Parameters
>
>      1. Query parameters for defining new request preferences and
>         features, which is NOT covered RFC 7480 and RFC 9082.  Many
>         RDAP extensions have leveraged extensibility of query
>         parameters, including RFC 8982, RFC 8977, RFC 9560,
>         draft-ietf-regext-rdap-versioning,
>
>  4. HTTP Headers
>
>      1. HTTP headers for defining new request preferences and
>         features, which is NOT covered RFC 7480 and RFC 9082.  The
>         draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type draft leverages
>         extensibility of HTTP headers.
>
>  5. “objectClassName” Member Value
>
>      1. Value of the “objectClassName” member for defining a new
>         object in the response, which is NOT covered RFC 7480 and RFC
>         9083.  I haven’t seen this form of extensibility in a
>         published extension, but it certainly would be needed if the
>         path segment was extended to support a new object.
>
> Are there other extension forms to cover.  If 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions becomes authoritative in defining 
> the RDAP extension forms than it may belong under STD 95, since I 
> don’t believe the base RFCs adequately covered the extensibility.  
> Instead of clarification and guidance, 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions could help define the extensibility 
> in a single place.  Obviously, it needs to be careful to stay in 
> compliance with the base RFC language, where the lack of definition in 
> the base RFCs shouldn’t restrict the extensibility of RDAP.
>
> -- 
>
> JG
>
>
> cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40
>
> *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/>
>
> *From: *Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 2:49 PM
> *To: *James Gould <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
>
> *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.
>
> Hi James,
>
> Right, that’s what the Extensions draft is intended for – reasonably 
> capture areas where the extension concept needs to evolve wrt the 
> current standard, as well as clarify the current extension concept. 
> Since this draft has already gone through couple of structural 
> re-organizations, please let us know where things are still lacking or 
> could be clarified further.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasdip
>
> P.S. This work could also be worthwhile in that the intended RESTful 
> Provisioning Protocol (RPP) effort should be able to emulate it for 
> extensibility.
>
> *From: *Gould, James <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM
> *To: *Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
>
> Jasdip,
>
> The use of sub-paths was not an envisioned form of extension in the 
> base RFCs as is the case for the other forms of extension that I 
> included in my prior mailing list messages (e.g., query parameters, 
> HTTP headers, “objectClassName” values).  The forms of extensions in 
> the base RFCs are spread across them and is not inclusive of all the 
> needed forms of extension supported by HTTP and REST in general.  I 
> believe the goal is that we don’t want collision between the 
> extensions, and we don’t want to overly constrict the forms of 
> extensions based on over interpreting the intent in the base RFCs.  Do 
> we want to disallow a new form of extension that was not originally 
> envisioned, or do we want to require updating the base RFCs every time 
> a new extension form comes up?  I personally don’t believe so.
>
> How about re-structuring draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions to formally 
> define the forms of RDAP extensions with appropriate guidance for each 
> form and with extensibility of the forms for the future?  We can be 
> creative for the future of RDAP extensibility without getting into RFC 
> language debate of “foo”, “bar”, and “fuzz”.
>
> -- 
>
> JG
>
>
> cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40
>
> *James Gould
> *Fellow Engineer
> [e-mail]
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com 
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Rq42Kzhu61rEqXxqpCU6D7aRd3en319x2ZrLqCNkl7xBrwDwowzPETXUKBvW_rvZq1xEejsqaJGZe95UaBPwuO_vUxsFaE4SkGvrNBzZAM05u5l9Rekn7AmL7LflsLXlwGfwJyjnSF_UeSr2YcAHlLeg2PFPmQg0ZvtOA2TFbE-HTohcBJSnZAwJ4ZoCOt_PF3mRRmffbY2llrv4brmyU-5G3vwXYm6V5LMi6Nw5zD1EZOjdEJjPK5xKzU2_rHh2u2qWFik-76olwyLBWXr9kkJTc6SXUNanSDGY0liNdr8/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com%2F>
>
> *From: *Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 11:13 AM
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: Comments Regarding 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
>
> *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.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I absolutely get the need to be conservative when updating an Internet 
> standard. Please allow me to explain why this would be a good evolution.
>
> Section 5 of RFC 9082 says:
>
> “Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a 
> unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For 
> example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing 
> "entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity".”
>
> IMO, this is necessary but not sufficient.
>
> If there is an existing path with a segment “fuzz” for an existing 
> extension “foo” and another extension “bar” comes along that has a 
> need to create paths that start at the same level as the existing 
> segment “fuzz”, then using the prepend-extension-id-and-underscore 
> approach to create segment “bar_fuzz” is helpful. That would leave us 
> with:
>
> For an existing extension “foo”, paths “fuzz/…” and “fizz/fuzz/…”.
>
> For a new extension “bar”, paths “bar_fuzz/…” and “fizz/bar_fuzz/…”.
>
> Now, the Extensions draft says:
>
> “While [RFC9082] describes the extension identifier as a prepended 
> string to a path segment, it does not describe the usage of the 
> extension identifier as a path segment which may have child path 
> segments. This document updates [RFC9082] to allow the usage of 
> extension identifiers as path segments which may have child path 
> segments.”
>
> By this use-extension-id-as-segment-for-child-segments approach, we 
> could replace paths “bar_fuzz/…” and “fizz/bar_fuzz/…” with:
>
> “bar/fuzz/…” and “fizz/bar/fuzz/…”
>
> The only difference is replacing ‘_’ with ‘/’ after “bar”, and still 
> retaining de-confliction.
>
> This is essentially what’s done in Reverse Search with path 
> “{searchable-resource-type}/reverse_search/{related-resource-type}?<search-condition>”. 
> For example:
>
> “domains/reverse_search/entity?...”
>
> where “reverse_search” is used as the path segment and “entity” as a 
> child segment. Respectfully, the prepend-extension-id-and-underscore 
> approach would be rather clumsy here.
>
> My main point being that there are use cases where the 
> prepend-extension-id-and-underscore approach is not a natural fit when 
> defining path segments. In fact, we “discovered” the 
> use-extension-id-as-segment-for-child-segments approach in the act of 
> penning the Extensions draft. We have been extremely careful in 
> picking the changes and clarifications for that draft.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasdip
>
> *From: *Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 7:48 AM
> *To: *Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *RE: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
>
> From: Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 4:52 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
>
>
>
> 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,
>
>
>
> From: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 at 4:15 PM
> To: Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [regext] Re: Comments Regarding 
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04
>
> ...
>
>
> I've read draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-04 completely and have 
> several comments to share. An overarching comment is that any update 
> to Standard 95 responses means that the modified responses will not be 
> consistent with "rdap_level_0". A new identifier will be needed. I'd 
> very much prefer to avoid updates to Standard 95 unless there's an 
> absolute necessity to do so.
>
>
>
> This draft does not change the RDAP data model and all updates are 
> either backwards compatible and/or codify existing practices, many of 
> them made by this working group. As there are no changes to the RDAP 
> data model and this draft is dealing with extensions and not the core 
> of RDAP, can you provide specific examples of these inconsistencies?
>
> [SAH] The data model might not be changing, but that's not the only 
> consideration. Recall this sentence from Section 4.1 of RFC 9083: "The 
> string literal "rdap_level_0" signifies conformance with this 
> specification". It doesn't say anything about the data model. I 
> interpret that sentence to mean that if RFC 9083 changes, 
> "rdap_level_0" continues to signify conformance with RFC 9083, NOT 
> with whatever updates it.
>
> Also, I'd like to point out that this working group has not updated 
> "rdap_level_0" even when making changes to the core RDAP data model, 
> as the move from PS to IS did in fact change the core RDAP data model 
> but did not change the identifier.
>
>
>
> With regard to interoperability between a client and a server, what is 
> changing that is incompatible? What core RDAP JSON or query is 
> changing? Can you provide specific examples?
>
> This document updates the core RDAP specs for two reasons: 1) they 
> define the rules around extension registrations, many of which this 
> working group has repeatedly broken, and 2) there are areas of those 
> documents concerning extensions that are very ambiguous. But this 
> document changes nothing with regard to current interoperability 
> between a client and server.
>
> Also, changing that identifier signals a new version of the protocol, 
> which this is not, and introduces an incompatibility with any current 
> software that relies on it. I don't know the extent of that 
> incompatibility, but I suspect at the very least many conformance 
> tools will break.
>
> [SAH] A specific example: I have a server that implements the foobar 
> extension, RFC 7480, 9082, and 9083. It expects to receive query path 
> segments that include "foobar_". It receives a query that includes 
> "foobar/fizz". It doesn't recognize that path segment, so the query 
> fails. That's protocol breakage.
>
>
>
> [JS] Servers work from an expected lookup or search path per the 
> definitions in a supported extension. Therefore, "foobar/fizz" should 
> be as much a valid expectation if so defined in an extension, as long 
> as namespace collisions are prevented.
>
>
>
> That said, "foobar_a/b" would be needed for an extension if another 
> extension already defines "a/b" for the same base path. E.g., 
> "domains/foobar_a/b" for extension "foobar" to de-conflict from 
> "domains/a/b" for extension "a". For an example of "domain/a/b" path 
> for extension "a", see 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09#name-path-segments-2 
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-6b-zkVxTZ_-hdQAx7qmBl4nTXJebGeQSByZ7UtXGe0EgSPCnLm38_rTiTBpp_FhWJvpsB-I94im7sVQP3pVbsRVA-K7XnTy5CsRo4J-zThUcR2c6qYy3rZ1i2BAIQPxXYUyhNDjAb-j2RRkOd-367hJPNH5sOpwCbuozz46OPZbG-nGaczH80zqGTvA0WewvsXQ_WOYlNl-9xh2VfpJ0dxChKhr0gn5cZs4Nl9kAvnrCY_fbUa3uCCSBbIgb4jra-Hs7_iaKVST10AltIe_jv4PrLSNOdOG2zcFnM5mb-c/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search-09%23name-path-segments-2>.
>
> [SAH] This is precisely why we have issues with extensions that aren't 
> following the guidance in the core specs. Those that define their own 
> extension identification mechanisms can cause problems. "foobar/fizz" 
> isn't valid per the existing core specs, and should not be defined as 
> such in an extension specification.
>
>
>
> Would you like regext to revisit Reverse Search?
>
> Some of the RIRs have or are in the process of implementing Reverse 
> Search and RIR Search. There was plenty of discussion on the current 
> extension identifiers for Reverse Search and RIR Search, and their 
> use. I cannot think of any good technical reason to disallow 
> "foobar/fizz", and IMO grandfathering such paths would be pragmatic. 
> We could further clarify usage scenarios for "foobar_fizz" versus 
> "foobar/fizz" in the Extensions draft.
>
> [SAH] We should be prepared to revisit any extension that deviates 
> from the core specifications. I get that there are people who are 
> implementing these extensions. There are many more people that have 
> implemented Standard 95.
>
> Jasdip
>
>
>
> P.S. Let me also re-post one other comment I made earlier:
>
> [SAH] Yes, that's what I'm advocating for. I'd rather change the 
> non-conforming Proposed Standard extensions than update an Internet 
> Standard to validate them. Updating the Proposed Standard will be far 
> more disruptive than updating the optional extensions.
>
> [JS] To Andy's disruption point, it is a balance between the extent of 
> grandfathering existing extensions and clarifying for the future 
> extensions.
>
> [SAH] If there's a way to do that without updating Standard 95, fine. 
> Stick to clarifications. Keep in mind, though, that once you've 
> allowed a second form of extension identification (identifiers without 
> prefixes), you're opening up the possibility of even more extension 
> identification schemes. Any clarifications should attempt to eliminate 
> that possibility.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]