Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Tue, 28 April 2020 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE693A12E5 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p52bAd3ay5ku for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA57A3A12B9 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 03:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DFCB80304; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:24:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSWY6CcBqc0I; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:24:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 249FBB801EA; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:24:27 +0200 (CEST)
To: Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com>, regext@ietf.org
References: <CF2EE8CE-DB07-4AFF-84D0-B80BA5E76D39@antoin.nl> <b79a4641-bade-4901-b3f0-bb7decbdb41e@www.fastmail.com> <d21468cb-4627-48ee-8b0b-74561a144bb1@www.fastmail.com> <ea01e595-600d-e033-a52e-13aee980ec8b@iit.cnr.it> <f935c82b-4402-4738-ab4b-b56590c7d244@www.fastmail.com>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <674291a4-6272-e911-be0d-d3dce379c42c@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:22:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f935c82b-4402-4738-ab4b-b56590c7d244@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: it
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/62T0IIJ2xeRg_i-V6UxESJky9QI>
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:24:42 -0000

Hi Patrick,

I just published a new version fixing the issues you pointed out in your 
feedback.

In detail:

- corrected the JSON content of Figure 2

- clarified the meaning of both context and target URIs in a result 
subset link. Hope this change meets your remark.

Best,

Mario


Il 27/04/2020 19:13, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 11:46, Mario Loffredo wrote:
>> Il 27/04/2020 08:04, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
>>> Also:
>>> couldn't each fieldset have a list of jsonPath elements (similar to what is done in
>>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging)
>>> to properly list the fields concerned?
>> I dropped this solution because it seemed to me conceptually valid but
>> very inefficient.
> Ok, I see.
>
>>> TBH, I am not sure to understand:
>>> - why there are multiple links elements (the example given shows only one, what would be other ones?)
>> The figure is uncorrect. I missed to fix this issue in the last version.
>> There are multiple field sets but each field set includes a single link
>> because each field set is an alternative view of the results provided
>> according to the current field set.
> Great, that was my understanding too.
>
>>> - why value there is different from href (and hence why value is needed at all),
>>> why is the current fieldSet the "context URI" of any other fieldset used for same query?
>>>
>>> RFC8288 defines the context URI to be, for HTML serialization:
>>> "The context of the
>>>      link is the URI associated with the entire HTML document. "
>> The use of both the "value" and the "href" JSON values is compliant to
>> what is shown in RFC7483. The context is the URI of the current view of
>> a resource (i.e. the collection of objects returned according to the
>> current fiel set) while the target is the URI of an alternative view of
>> the same resource (i.e. the collection of objects provided according
>> another field set).
> Ok. Maybe put that in the draft (value = current document, href = other document with other fieldset applied)>
>   
>>> There is no real explanation of the context for RDAP, but based on that maybe
>>> it should be a link to the same query with fieldSet "full"?
>> I think that we need to agree about the meaning of "context" in RDAP. It
> Yes, I need this point should be explained better in rfc7483bis,
> hoping that it could be considered as a clarification/correction point.
>
-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
#pleasestayathome