Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott,

my opinion is that the confusion results from the ambiguity in what is 
written in section 6 of RFC7480.

Therefore, think first we need to unambiguously define:

-  the relationship between prefixes, IANA registered identifiers, 
version numbers and rdapConformance values (substantially it means to 
select one among the possible approaches and define everything formally)

- how version numbers can be identified into the rdapConformance values 
(should "_level_" be used as a separator? what should be used as a minor 
version seprator?)

Honestly, I'm not as knowledgeable as you about IETF procedures to set 
out how to proceed; if we should correct RFC7480, write an RFC7480bis or 
write another document.

Surely, we need to make some clarifications.

Then, depending on how RFC7480 will be updated, RFC9083 will be changed 
or left as is.


Best,

Mario


Il 27/06/2022 16:03, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> I can only disagree. That wasn't the original intent, and the inconsistency is clearly causing confusion.
>
> Scott
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gould, James <jgould=[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:57 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions
>> Approach Analysis v2)
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> I don't believe anything needs to be changed in 9083.  Where "lunarNIC" is
>> the registered prefix identifier and the RDAP conformance value
>> "lunarNIC_level_0" might be used.  This supports the use of the registered
>> prefix identifier and the needed versioning.
>>
>> --
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>>
>> 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://secure-
>> web.cisco.com/17L1JiCMWxihiqijR7XxolXXTLM51s_o4v4LJd8cJwrsx1htY2H80
>> EGH7i2Ensln_D7oZmX1Lmm3LMkoOx-
>> Sg1eCTr5jaMylS1ZgAFsT7wVnmCBs_TFiKYSaAvNZzoHuBov1ZjQLD8Mfh9skcr
>> Tq8dg2XhG4jb3sHN2-
>> gdEMQh_ozYxTl4jLeuMAB1Yy_OZ78eUtEJW0NWKTJmwv7moKrvdWhOZWP
>> kXvSKaIJmgMevrgIJioJZJnEr_S0qppCdxmn/http%3A%2F%2Fverisigninc.com
>> %2F>
>>
>> On 6/27/22, 9:38 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-
>> [e-mail] on behalf of shollenbeck=[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>      Mario, there's a basic problem with the approach you're suggesting below.
>> We
>>      can't "correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with what decided".
>>
>>      The "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream" statement provides
>>      guidance for what we can and cannot do:
>>
>>      https://secure-
>> web.cisco.com/1V_oFdQEIWuGT_dN8fQSYXCZzrWnfzH9rGieJ4s_OqWNMGS
>> 7DXUn2eUGXSePIhNcBoUl-
>> o1RWtngwq8OSMZOnVCTGcmdz4zhbaD1Wf3vF5c6c7yfAd-
>> TVYYidTUBHczFr3K4l0sZaxH1tS1tQybTK6fUFYaTPxWcRe9-
>> eW5ySkLoOVOmnjYSnsTbyL9y2O5k3s3t8ub-6INo5aHL5vmd72uQQtEJ4-
>> k64WTfvwOUHHwdn4zPYWP5q10HqPDgscdWA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.
>> org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fprocessing-errata-ietf-
>> stream%2F
>>
>>      Note these statements:
>>
>>      "Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used
>> to
>>      change what the community meant when it approved the RFC."
>>
>>      "Errata are classified as “technical” or “editorial”."
>>
>>      "Technical errata are expected to be things that would likely cause
>>      significant misunderstandings of the technical specification and might result
>>      in faulty implementations if they are not corrected."
>>
>>      "Technical items that have a clear resolution in line with the original intent
>>      should be classified as Verified. If the resolution is not clear or requires
>>      further discussion, the report should be classified as Hold for Document
>>      Update. In both cases, only items that are clearly wrong should be
>>      considered."
>>
>>      "Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might be
>>      different from the intended consensus when the document was approved
>> should
>>      generally be Rejected. Significant clarifications should not be handled as
>>      errata reports and need to be discussed by the relevant technical
>> community."
>>
>>      "Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an IANA
>>      registration procedure, to something that might be different from the
>> intended
>>      consensus when the document was approved should be Rejected."
>>
>>      What I'm proposing (report the inconsistency in 9083 and make the
>> "lunarNIC"
>>      vs. "lunarNIC_level_0" thing consistent) is aligned with the above. The
>>      current text is obviously causing significant misunderstandings of the
>>      technical specification, and my proposed change* matches the intended
>>      consensus when the document was approved. The desire to make more
>> significant
>>      changes to 9083, to include any changes focused on how to identify and
>> manage
>>      versioning, really needs to be addressed independently.
>>
>>      Scott
>>
>>      * I'm willing to request that instances of "lunarNIC" be changed to
>>      "lunarNIC_level_0" if that's preferred. Andy and I believe that the original
>>      intent was for the values to be consistent, and this change would also align
>>      with use of "rdap_level_0".
>>
>>      > -----Original Message-----
>>      > From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
>>      > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 AM
>>      > To: [e-mail]
>>      > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions
>>      > Approach Analysis v2)
>>      >
>>      > 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 folks,
>>      >
>>      > I invite you to consider that, currently, rdap-reverse-search and,
>>      > potentially,
>>      > three other RDAP-related docs are blocked waiting for the end of this
>>      > discussion.
>>      >
>>      > In addition, it seems to me more logical, first, to decide how RDAP
>>      > exentions
>>      > must be treated and, then, correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with
>> what
>>      > decided.
>>      >
>>      > Once agreed on which approach to follow, we could proceed in parallel
>> with
>>      > the correction of RFC 9083 and the writing of a document defining the
>>      > guidelines for extending RDAP.
>>      >
>>      > For the sake of completeness and comprehension, such a document
>> might
>>      > include the scenarios Jasdip has described in his analysis.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > Best,
>>      >
>>      > Mario
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > Il 15/06/2022 19:27, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>>      > > Thanks for doing all this work, Jasdip. Now we have to decide what to
>> do
>>      > with
>>      > > all of this information.
>>      > >
>>      > > As a first step, I think we need to submit errata to address issues with
>>      > > the
>>      > > existing RFC(s). RFC 9083 uses both "lunarNIC" and "lunarNIC_level_0".
>> At
>>      > a
>>      > > minimum, Andy and I agree that "lunarNIC_level_0" should be replaced
>>      > with
>>      > > "lunarNIC".
>>      > >
>>      > > Rationale: Section 2.1 of RFC 9083 describes "lunarNIC" as an example
>> of
>>      > > an
>>      > > identifying prefix and includes examples of this value being used as an
>>      > > extension prefix. Section 4.1 says "For example, if the fictional Registry
>>      > > of
>>      > > the Moon wants to signify that their JSON responses are conformant
>> with
>>      > their
>>      > > registered extensions, the string used might be "lunarNIC_level_0". We
>>      > believe
>>      > > that 4.1 and 2.1 are inconsistent and that they can be made consistent
>> by
>>      > > changing "lunarNIC_level_0" with "lunarNIC" in 4.1.
>>      > >
>>      > > Additional errata may be needed. If so, where, and what else needs to
>> be
>>      > done?
>>      > >
>>      > > Scott
>>      > > _______________________________________________
>>      > > regext mailing list
>>      > > [e-mail]
>>      > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sPv-
>>      >
>> dLzvvqhNDXbiOOjohSnIO97wGQlAwNMpaY3C1_JwFw8ZcW5yQKcqwEMjjI4a
>>      > wA-Jl-e-tV4WSuYkK6ga2H5oLbNJuwp-O9KiMNKynBi1Mkn0Bv_AZ8rq2G-
>>      >
>> Dajc2YkeBA8viu7YJWWAr4AL74OjYAIXKkLYhP7srUtpD9M94cWjRPcUMlQmtS
>>      > DKU33bc5zTBP1RbMJOXmxIuxOlu8vd4DhsVN9gzqOWeoHdCi-
>>      > uCH9HX3xgUp6w1-
>>      >
>> zSiYr0K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
>>      >
>>      > --
>>      > Dr. Mario Loffredo
>>      > Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
>>      > Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
>>      > National Research Council (CNR)
>>      > via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
>>      > Phone: [phone]
>>      > Web: http://secure-
>>      >
>> web.cisco.com/1tDmAE3yEIWzsMXoMIliAb7B8sxyrzbH1sGKAJgZa_qRqMiFfP
>>      >
>> STq4tq2ieXF83omlH12rdACydGrVu4sEPz9UTOExDvMKGC4wsoXQx71DAE-
>>      >
>> xr3l6jIFv200l9aKQE_149dEbt_ystXWGuWxMjIJXeEIce2zpyuBNc27m43gVjK_c
>>      >
>> o23TUyEQWCsfQHD8H1lsLQpc3OGoz_05I0AwljSDG3vwc5vV8plppwhhkS2z9C
>>      >
>> TqYsdnpctlwEXIYGToCuF/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo
>>      >
>>      > _______________________________________________
>>      > regext mailing list
>>      > [e-mail]
>>      > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sPv-
>>      >
>> dLzvvqhNDXbiOOjohSnIO97wGQlAwNMpaY3C1_JwFw8ZcW5yQKcqwEMjjI4a
>>      > wA-Jl-e-tV4WSuYkK6ga2H5oLbNJuwp-O9KiMNKynBi1Mkn0Bv_AZ8rq2G-
>>      >
>> Dajc2YkeBA8viu7YJWWAr4AL74OjYAIXKkLYhP7srUtpD9M94cWjRPcUMlQmtS
>>      > DKU33bc5zTBP1RbMJOXmxIuxOlu8vd4DhsVN9gzqOWeoHdCi-
>>      > uCH9HX3xgUp6w1-
>>      >
>> zSiYr0K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      regext mailing list
>>      [e-mail]
>>      https://secure-
>> web.cisco.com/1koVgFwXjNQjGlB5ua2nkhXLFmoQfAZZSy4Ue5jAsDqoUOHP
>> mudpISewmydg0IU9zTmDML1UyKWPHRngPuXl9tXvprC3IJTW3jb8hNx8SjP6
>> w3CbU_6myeF-
>> bp9fID6MF0u0_B5BY9sUyBWXO2jtv5_1XX4gSmyiJtmw_p8ErDyvYLK86eqS3La
>> 0iodAi2MYhsKycTdH3QAXQa4qX0AGWh7oSMDw4GLSXT96X-
>> 9yGQ5NuZFO6qecYM3ZVK32hg7o3/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmail
>> man%2Flistinfo%2Fregext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: [phone]
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo