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

[Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]>]

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?

TBH, I am not sure to understand:
- why there are multiple links elements (the example given shows only one, what would be other ones?)
- 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. "

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"?

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 00:45, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, at 09:43, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> > The following working group document is believed to be ready for 
> > submission to the IESG for publication as a standards track document:
> > 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
> > 
> > This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 13 March 2020.
> 
> I am too late, I know.
> 
> But anyway I fear that at least the "brief" case will create interoperability
> problems, or at least complexity in clients because there is a risk of each
> RDAP server thinking of it differently.
> The "subsetting_metadata" is only a SHOULD not a MUST, so clients could
> remain completely without real explanations on why "brief" for server A
> is different from "brief" result for server B.
> 
> It would have been nice to provide a template for "brief", at least a SHOULD,
> per objects described in the RDAP RFCs.
> 
> Specially since the document has this text:
> "the
>    name, as well as the list of fields for each field set, should be
>    shared by most of RDAP providers."
> 
> Written like that, this is not a protocol specification, and does not even
> give tools at the protocol level to enforce that.
> 
> Or, and this could be an easy solution, another draft defining rdapConformance
> subsetting_brief_level_0
> should define exactly what is brief and then servers are free to properly
> signal if they adhere to this definition of fields or not.
> There could be multiple drafts in fact for multiple definitions.
> 
> PS: the argument in A.1 about the complexity arising out of jCard can 
> "soon"
> become obsolete if draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation goes 
> through,
> so maybe some text should have addressed other non jCard cases (or 
> explaining why
> even if jCard is dropped then problems remain)
> 
> -- 
>   Patrick Mevzek
>   [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  [e-mail]