Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Sat, 03 October 2020 09:41 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 4227D3A0976 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 02:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, 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 Ki_EjdN0Knfm for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 02:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CCF3A0977 for <regext@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC10B80440; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 11:41:02 +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 ED-Ymlw8sK1k; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 11:40:58 +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 59601B802D4; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 11:40:58 +0200 (CEST)
To: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>, regext@ietf.org
References: <F5EC2287-ADD1-49E9-B5F2-25E73C64DA10@antoin.nl> <064F7704-0619-4CD1-A17C-A59EC82A7596@elistx.com>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <a6d6d7fe-9620-e620-a6ba-1b695b6030b9@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 11:37:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <064F7704-0619-4CD1-A17C-A59EC82A7596@elistx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9004315D7E08D1BBFDFBA35D"
Content-Language: it
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/DIjnnFfcJzCGbmcJHGjX1JxoKoQ>
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis
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: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 09:41:07 -0000

Il 02/10/2020 22:06, James Galvin ha scritto:
> The WGLC for this document was scheduled to end today.  While there is 
> support to move the document forward there are two minor comments that 
> have been raised during the last call.
>
> The chairs would like to hear from other working group members as to 
> what to do with these comments.  Rather than close the last call and 
> risk another last call, we are extending this last call for another 
> week.  If we can come to a consensus as to how to proceed before the 
> end of last call than the document can stay on track to be submitted 
> to the IESG after the last call.
>
> The WG last call will end at close of business on Friday, 9 October 2020.
>
>
>
> Here are the comments as seen on the mailing list.  Please respond 
> with your suggestions regarding these two comments.
>
>
>
> James Gould:
>
> I have one item to bring up with draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis, which 
> is associated with Section 5.1 “The Entity Object Class”. The jCard 
> "version" and "fn" members are required according to RFC 6350, which 
> poses an issue if a contact name does not exist or needs to be 
> redacted.  To address this case, I recommend adding a sentence to the 
> end of section 3 "Common Data Types":
>
> Contact information is defined using jCards as described in 
> [RFC7095].  The “version” and “fn” members are required according to 
> [RFC6350], where an empty “fn” member MAY be used when the contact 
> name does not exist or is redacted.
>
> Two response have been offered:
>
> Scott Hollenbeck:
>
> I'd like to see some discussion of this suggestion. If one understands 
> the normative references, the suggestion is already implicitly 
> addressed. There may be some value in describing this situation 
> explicitly since it came up in the ICANN gTLD implementation context, 
> but so others think this clarification is necessary?
>
> Jasdip Singh:
>
> Seems if the RDAP profile for the DNRs 
> (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en) 
> could clarify this, the spec could be left as-is.
>
>
IMHO RFC7095 omits to state something about the "fn" element while it 
states clearly that the "version" element must be set to "4.0".  This 
omission leaves the door open to the interpretation that the empty 
string is an allowable value. In my opinion this interpretation is 
correct while the "fn" element must not be null. Besides, in this way,  
RDAP implementers are free to differentiate between the case where a 
value is missing from the case where the value exists but isn't 
displayed for privacy concerns.

That being said, I would write the above sentence as in the following:

/Contact information is defined using jCards as described in [RFC7095].  
The “fn” member is required and MUST NOT be null according to [RFC6350], 
where an empty “fn” member MAY be used when the contact name does not 
exist or is redacted. /

As an additional note, I would like to announce that soon I will release 
a Java library, named jscontact-tools, offering capabilities for 
JSContactcreation, validation, serialization/deserialization and 
conversion from vCard, xCard e jCard. Validation and conversion leverage 
the features provided by ez-vcard 
<https://github.com/mangstadt/ez-vcard> Java library.

I have tested the library against the responses returned by the RDAP 
servers listed in the IANA Boostrap Service Registy for Domain Name 
Space. Almost 25% of jCard instances processed don't return a value for 
the "fn" element  (e.g.  it is either missing or null). This leads me to 
think that the clarification proposed by James is needed.


Best,

Mario


> Thanks!
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2020, at 9:52, 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-rfc7483bis/
>>
>> This WG last call will end at close of business, Friday, 2 October 2020.
>>
>> Please review this document and indicate your support (a simple “+1” 
>> is sufficient) or concerns with the publication of this document by 
>> replying to this message on the list.
>>
>> The document shepherd for this document is Jasdip Singh.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jim and Antoin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
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