Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

Il 31/07/2020 16:10, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:49 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
>> rdap-reverse-search
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> Il 31/07/2020 15:21, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:03 AM
>>>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in
>>>> draft-ietf-regext- rdap-reverse-search
>>>>
>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>
>>>> thanks a lot for your feddback.
>>>>
>>>> Please find my comments to your feedback below.
>>>>
>>>> Il 31/07/2020 14:29, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
>>>>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search currently states that "This
>>>>> document
>>>> has no actions for IANA".  I believe that's primarily because there's
>>>> nothing new or different being returned in the search results, which
>>>> is where RDAP servers describe the features they support.
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>> There is, however, a case to be made for registering a value in the
>>>>> RDAP
>>>> extensions registry: a response to a help query (or any other query)
>>>> can be used to indicate that the server supports reverse search. I'd
>>>> like to suggest this change for Section 7:
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> This document has no actions for IANA.
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
>>>>> Extensions
>>>> Registry:
>>>>> Extension identifier: reverse_search_1_0 (or whatever makes sense)
>>>>> Registry operator: Any Published specification: This document.
>>>>> Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>>>>> Intended usage: This extension describes reverse search query
>>>>> patterns
>>>> for RDAP.
>>>>> Scott
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, my opinion is that Section 4.1 of RFC7483bis should be
>>>> updated to treat this use case. I mean, a server should signal in
>>>> rdapConformance not only the extensions used in building the response
>>>> but all the supported features.
>>> So maybe this?
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each
>> providing a hint as to the specifications used in the construction of the
>> response.
>>> NEW:
>>> The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each
>> providing a hint as to the specifications that describe the query and response
>> formats supported by the server.
>>> Scott
>> How about "query and response extensions" ?
> That would exclude the core protocol specifications. Is this better?
>
> "The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each of which describes a query or response specification supported by the server."

OK. I wrote "extensions" in my previous message to mean "in addition to 
rdap_level_0".

Mario

>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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