Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mario,

Sorry to be slow to get back you.  I’ve checked the changes in -25 against my comments and it all looks good to me.

I’ve cleared my discuss.

Regards,
Rob


From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
Sent: 28 August 2023 08:57
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


Hi Robert,

need to partially correct my comment about the content of table in Section 12.2.4.2.

The "Reference" field is already defined for the "Reverse Search Mapping" registry and for all the entries of that registry the value is the same as that for the entries of the "Reverse Search" registry as it is explained in the second paragraph of Section 12.2.4.2.

The "Reference" field in the "Reverse Search Mapping" registry is required to store the link to the documentation supporting the given mapping.

The "PropetyPath" field allows the requestor to describe the mapping formally and unambiguously.

Therefore, thinking back, there's no need to introduce a "Description" property for that registry.

Anyway, if you think the "Description" field should also be included to provide a brief description of the mapping, I'll add it to both  12.2.4.1 and 12.2.4.2 Sections.

Looking forward to you reply about this and other points.

Best,

Mario
Il 24/08/2023 15:48, Mario Loffredo ha scritto:

Hi Robert,

thanks a lot for your review.

Please find my comments inline.
Il 23/08/2023 15:06, Robert Wilton via Datatracker ha scritto:

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: Discuss



When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this

introductory paragraph, however.)





Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.





The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/







----------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSS:

----------------------------------------------------------------------







Hi,



Flagging part of the IANA considerations as a DISCUSS, but I think that this

should be easy to resolve:



(1) p 11, sec 12.2.1.  Creation of the RDAP Reverse Search Registries



   These registries follow the Specification Required process as defined

   in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126].



   The designated expert should prevent collisions and confirm that

   suitable documentation, as described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126], is

   available to ensure interoperability.  References are not limited

   only to RFCs and simple definitions could be described in the

   registries themselves.



I'm not sure that "simple definitions could be described in the registries

themselves" is consistent with the "Specification Required" policy chosen above.

[ML] You are right. I'll change that sentence as in the following:

   References are not limited

   only to RFCs but can also locate document published outside of the RFC path, including informal

   documentation.



Does it work for you ?



----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



[I support John's discuss on normative references.]



I also have some other comments that you may wish to consider:



(2) p 14, sec 12.2.4.2.  Initial Content



      +==========+==================================================+

      | Property | Property Path                                    |

      +==========+==================================================+

      | fn       | $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]    |

      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+

      | handle   | $.entities[*].handle                             |

      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+

      | email    | $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3] |

      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+

      | role     | $.entities[*].roles                              |

      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+



Would it be helpful for this table to include the "Description" and "Reference"

properties?

[ML] Do you mean the "Description" and "Reference" related to the specific mapping for the reverse search property or those related to the reverse search property ?

In the latter case they are already included in Table 2 and Table 1 respectively.

In the first case, they are missing and must be first added to the "RDAP Reverse Search Mapping Registry".

Since there might be specifications proposing a diffierent maping for an existing reverse search property it sounds reasonable to me to add both of them.

Minor level comments:



(3) p 3, sec 1.  Introduction



   The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP

   query capabilities and response to enable reverse search based on the

   relationships defined in RDAP between an object class for search and

   a related object class.  The reverse search based on the domain-

   entity relationship is treated as a particular case of such a generic

   model.



This introduction text seems to immediately jump into a defense as to why it is

okay to standardize this functionality in an RDAP extension.  This is okay, but

I wonder whether it wouldn't be better if the introduction only included the

last paragraph (i.e., that is stating what extension is defined in this

document), and the rest of the text was moved into a "Background" subsection of

the introduction.

[ML]  Sounds reasonable to me. Then, the new Introduction section should be arranged as into the following:

1. Introduction

The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP

   query capabilities and response to enable reverse search based on the

   relationships defined in RDAP between an object class for search and

   a related object class.  The reverse search based on the domain-

   entity relationship is treated as a particular case of such a generic

   model.

1.1 Background

   Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that

   allows users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company

   starting from the owner's details, such as name and email.  Even if

   it has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g.

   uncovering trademark infringements, detecting cybercrimes), its

   availability as a standardized Whois capability has been objected to

   for two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict with an RDAP

   implementation.

.....

.....

.....



   Currently, RDAP does not provide any means for a client to search for

   the collection of domains associated with an entity [RFC9082].  A

   query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities

   related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar,

   administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation

   is not allowed.  Only reverse searches to find the collection of

   domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested.

   Since an entity can be in relationship with any RDAP object

   [RFC9083], the availability of a reverse search as largely intended

   can be common to all the object classes allowed for search.  Through

   a further step of generalization, the meaning of reverse search in

   the RDAP context can be extended to include any query for retrieving

   all the objects in relationship with another matching a given search

   pattern.

Can you please confirm that it would work for you ?

(4) p 7, sec 8.  Reverse Searches Based on Entity Details



   Reverse search property:  fn

   RDAP member path:  $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]

   Reference:  Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350]



A minor issue, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me what 'fn' is - I

initially presumed that it meant function, so I was wondering if some more text

would be helpful here, and/or perhaps in the IANA registry that you are

creating.

[ML] FN is a property of the vCard format [RFC6350] representing the contact name. The JSON format for the vCard data, namely jCard [RFC7095],  is used in RDAP responses [RFC9083] to represent contact information (see the member "vcardArray" in the JSONPath expression)

jCard specification states that the property names should be in lowercase.

The name 'fn' is also used in RDAP as query parameter for seacrhing contacts by name [RFC9082].

Besides being well-known to RDAP operators, think that the value of the "Description" field in the "RDAP Reverse Search" registry  makes it clear enough the meaning of the "fn" reverse search property.



Best,

Mario

Regards,

Rob







_______________________________________________

regext mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

--

Dott. Mario Loffredo

Senior Technologist

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



_______________________________________________

regext mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

--

Dott. Mario Loffredo

Senior Technologist

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