Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-16.txt

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Tue, 29 November 2022 06:49 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 B30C7C14CE22 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 22:49:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tXvEVjVaOcf8 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 22:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.58.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED0FC14CE20 for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 22:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD8DB80258; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:49:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it
Received: from iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhQzzqcX5Upg; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:49:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.16.66] (sa.nic.it [192.12.193.247]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7361B801C6; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:49:34 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BwOfLeBTDRIzk60pbtzNCTnI"
Message-ID: <5158d050-c09a-5a88-8501-894e49f74b5c@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:46:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0
To: Pawel Kowalik <kowalik@denic.de>, regext@ietf.org
References: <166904400845.63178.12808486915076028699@ietfa.amsl.com> <3cf24684-e89c-2565-e2ae-be797359ebc4@iit.cnr.it> <Y3zH8UtSf4QMwHU5@TomH-802418> <3d566ca4-999e-4e72-e8f1-2e9dd65d2440@iit.cnr.it> <Y39njQxonjw4vw21@TomH-802418> <85c931a7-7800-6f57-6eed-5115fc1d448c@iit.cnr.it> <Y4Pbb2exb8B34eXc@TomH-802418> <1e06a59a-776a-421a-c91c-866ca6c5227d@denic.de> <ea670a71-c628-837c-333a-c2fe4e75452f@iit.cnr.it> <06491465-f5ef-8ff9-dfab-4bc2caf941e8@denic.de>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
In-Reply-To: <06491465-f5ef-8ff9-dfab-4bc2caf941e8@denic.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/EnOi4yCziQSaPkeji7ePMNYhQ_Q>
Subject: Re: [regext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-16.txt
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:49:45 -0000

Hi Pawel,

Il 28/11/2022 22:02, Pawel Kowalik ha scritto:
>
> Hi Mario,
>
> My comment inline.
>
> Am 28.11.22 um 21:20 schrieb Mario Loffredo:
>>>>> "A custom reverse search property MUST NOT collide with a 
>>>>> registered reverse
>>>>> search property and MUST NOT match an RDAP property, or any of its 
>>>>> variants,
>>>>> matched by a registered reverse search property."
>>> [PK] not sure about the second MUST NOT if it's not too hard. What 
>>> kind of harm we are trying to prevent, when 2 reverse search 
>>> properties match the same RDAP property?
>>> I am thinking of a scenario, where the server defines a custom 
>>> property, then it gets registered under a different name - the 
>>> server may wish to keep both for back compatibility.
>> [ML] Just the opposite harm. A registered property having the same 
>> name of a custom property but they refer to different RDAP properties. 
> [PK2] OK, this one I agree, but this is the first part "A custom 
> reverse search property MUST NOT collide with a registered reverse 
> search property", isn't it?
>
> My comment was referring to the second part, where, if I read it 
> right, it would be forbidden to match a custom reverse search property 
> to same field as any of already registered ones.
>
[ML] In my opinion, both the misuses are harmful. For the sake of 
increasing interoperability, the case of two reverse search properties 
mapping the same RDAP property must be avoided as well. The only 
admissible case should be when the same name is used to map two RDAP 
properties but one is an equivalent representation of the other in 
another format (i.e. the entity full name can be represented both in 
jCard and in JSContact but both are used to represent the same 
information).

Best,

Mario

> Kind regards,
>
> Pawel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dott. 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: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo