Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-04.txt

Mario,

Here is my feedback regarding this draft:

I think it is useful for clients to request a partial response as described
in this draft.

Chapter 2:

The discussions of the different approaches to partial response, which I
guess led to the decision of the WG to go for field sets, should be
probably moved to some kind of appendix to not confuse the reader. However,
it is interesting to read about the reasons and two comments on this
chapter: it says "the request of some fields might not match the user
access levels." You might also run into this when the request contains a
field set that is not allowed for this user (this is also admitted in
chapter 5) – so that is probably no advantage. Furthermore, you state that
interoperability is facilitated with pre-defined filed sets while there is
no exact definition of all field sets.

Chapter 5:

I noticed that older version of this draft had a more detailed description
of the "brief" dataset, which is now removed. Do you think
interoperability, as written in chapter 2, is still achievable? And since
server operators can add their own field sets: do they need to be
registered somewhere or just be announced in the metadata with its human
readable description of which fields are going to be returned?

Is the "full" field set really required (and what is the difference of a
response with the "full" field set and an response without this extension?

Best,

Karl

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:31 AM Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this new version extends a review by Tom Harrison about including a "self"
> link in the "id" field set. Now the draft recommends the RDAP providers to
> include a "self" link in any field set other than the full response.
>
> Thanks a lot Tom for your review.
>
> Best,
>
> mario
>
>
> -------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
> Oggetto: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-04.txt
> Data: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:24:21 -0700
> Mittente: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> A: Maurizio Martinelli <maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it>
> <maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it>, Mario Loffredo
> <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-04.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Mario Loffredo and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response
> Revision: 04
> Title: Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
> Document date: 2019-09-02
> Group: regext
> Pages: 13
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-04.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-04
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-04
>
> Abstract:
> The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include
> capabilities to request partial responses. In fact, according to the
> user authorization, the server can only return full responses. A
> partial response capability, especially in the case of search
> queries, could bring benefits to both clients and servers. This
> document describes an RDAP query extension that allows clients to
> specify their preference for obtaining a partial response.
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>