IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] rdap mobile app avail

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Thu, 29 August 2019 13:09 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 ABE6B12007C for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 U-TszzI7u4ia for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx3.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD0712004A for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29919600319; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:09:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx3.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx3.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xmHetVEGEp4O; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:09:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 718C460027B; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:09:16 +0200 (CEST)
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, Marc Groeneweg <Marc.Groeneweg=40sidn.nl@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: regext <regext@ietf.org>
References: <FB51763A-A13A-4F45-80C1-80DECFF1AC53@viagenie.ca> <2DA22A4A-DC81-4CC4-8A0D-7AFFF98B822D@sidn.nl> <CAAQiQReTkhLk2_MsTgnXL6=TOmEZ=4F2qSa3muiA+U31nX3Y1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <bff8a94b-d4d4-da57-b9f0-3d77f9a61d7a@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:07:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQReTkhLk2_MsTgnXL6=TOmEZ=4F2qSa3muiA+U31nX3Y1g@mail.gmail.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/9sQFM7OuegxNkvC28ON0cWyfURs>
Subject: Re: [regext] rdap mobile app avail
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:09:25 -0000

Hi Andy,

Il 29/08/2019 13:42, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
> Hi Marc,
>
> First, sorry that you are feeling frustrated.
>
> With regards to null vs empty string, in my opinion both are
> incorrect. If your registry does not have the value or is not allowed
> to publish the value, the correct thing to do is to simply leave the
> value out of the response.

In theory I agree with you but, since fn is required in jCard, how could 
it be possible to represent a fn whose value is redacted?

In addition, I wonder if it could be useful for a user to know if a 
value is unavailable or it is redacted.

mario

> There are a few required fields in RDAP,
> but for the most part everything is optional.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> -andy
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 4:11 AM Marc Groeneweg
> <Marc.Groeneweg=40sidn.nl@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Due to the release of the mobile app of Marc, Blanchet we saw we differ in interpretation of some fields we have in our RDAP implementation (for .politie and .amsterdam).
>> Feedback from my development on the issues given Marc is that they have chosen for a direction, that is at least now not compliant with what the mobile app aspects.
>>
>> They are frustrated about this, since they have had an extensive period behind them with working on the specifications and building a sound RDAP implementation, that also is meant for .nl later this year. Intensive contact with ICANN resulted only in 'Sorry we don't know' and 'We don't have sufficient resources to give an answer now.'.
>>
>> So, we have our implementation live! But how can we make sure (if not ICANN but at least the community) what compliancy means... (e.g. we return a null when we don't have a value and "" when we have an empty string value. The mobile app wants "" in all empty situations... Just an interpretation?).
>>
>> I do not have the answers yet. Some of the points Marc gave us (in private mail exchange, for which I am grateful) will be solved. But that's not the point really.
>>
>> Hope to hear from you all :-).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marc Groeneweg
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> regext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Servizi Internet e Sviluppo Tecnologico
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
E-Mail: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email