Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis

Scott,

>> I'm still not comfortable with this. If we suggest that the server MUST or SHOULD do something to define a scheme, we leave open the issue of how a client discovers that scheme - and if we add a processing step to discover the scheme, we've changed the protocol from the client's 
>> perspective. I still believe that this is an issue best addressed in an implementation profile document and not the protocol specification.

I believe that providing guidance in the protocol to the real-world overlapping of entity handles (contact and registrar) as necessary.  The protocol would have explicit language on how to handle the case of overlapping entity handles.  A discovery mechanism is not needed, since we didn't have a need to create one based on the approach taken.  

-- 

JG

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgould@Verisign.com>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 10/5/20, 9:00 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
    > Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 3:18 AM
    > To: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>; regext@ietf.org
    > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis
    >
    >
    > Il 02/10/2020 22:15, James Galvin ha scritto:
    > > The WGLC for this document was scheduled to end today.  While there is
    > > support to move the document forward there is one minor comment that
    > > has been raised during the last call.
    > >
    > > The chairs would like to hear from other working group members as to
    > > what to do with this comment.  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:
    > >
    > > Yes, lumping the registrar object with the contact object under a
    > > single RDAP entity object interface is the rub.  We solved the problem
    > > in the RDAP Profile, by supporting entity lookup by IANA ID (number)
    > > and registrar name (string) for the registrar objects, and by ROID
    > > (“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") for the contact objects. Where there is
    > > overlap, which is registrar name (string) and ROID
    > > ((“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") the contact takes precedence.  My
    > > recommendation is to provide guidance in the section 3.1.5 "Entity
    > > Path Segment Specification" for this real world case:
    > >
    > > The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
    > > registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
    > > registration provider.  For example, for some DNRs, contact
    > > identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733], and registrar
    > > identifiers are specified using the IANA Registrar ID assigned by
    > > ICANN.  The server SHOULD define a scheme for the <handle> parameter
    > > to differentiate between the supported entity object types (e.g.,
    > > contact and registrar), such as using different <handle> formats,
    > > using a <handle> precedence order, or a combination of formats and
    > > precedence order.
    > >
    > > The SHOULD could be a MUST, but the point is to provide guidance to
    > > implementers of the protocol.
    > >
    > > Two responses have been offered:
    > >
    > > Jasdip Singh response:
    > >
    > > One thought is if it could be in the RDAP profile doc for the DNRs
    > > (https://secure-
    > web.cisco.com/1_AKsyXhtRLN9h4LEAG65owtJMhHrfLUp94HAp7iv6U5KRK_-
    > 2Mtzd56Rf4smGoyDJ4eiIqM3a4E73iWsnhGOX4YnFCyWF_xzCaslHxhJOxiqbH
    > hiSRwAiyk8mMkECJoYKSlQ1kmb4u3-
    > _sD2Be3SyrMHZApsS3iBtbY3MemXbSWSv4c6DFlq8sfMzGMjqy4PQekUbt9Lt
    > HcNRfwPHXhN9IFFpecud-xKW8luC4RDIz7jmjeFU9N11h-
    > lUPrhogswglEugCXCl95vnmjQ5lqytQ/https%3A%2F%2Fhttp://secure-web.cisco.com/1KzaMJBYCbHehlcyM7qgPzBHHaQvr1dOBGVjKZpsDWq867Y5KK33Xpj7gO1ijGMStZiT2-3TBK7ej3U5yYTxNbvIluknka0M48pQzXdUZwKvNgHeKhpieimICcERv8ytTgpOTh6oH_p_deFEo_xT15mJU5eJufBCSCEnu_AQMtR3VgaaURwLueY0Bw-Am4T5mb12dNiJHS_Uy6RpnXYUflqWBeQ0NCXczhOd7XkXyO62Kk1SHZ5UHdFFWrOFdBbuRuOkpX8FDJHhiWXx2xy2thQ/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fre
    > sources%2Fpages%2Frdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en).
    > > That way no need to update the spec.
    > >
    > > James Gould response:
    > >
    > > The RDAP Profile is dependent on the RFC, so I wouldn't create a
    > > circular dependency.  My recommendation is to take the lessons learned
    > > in implementing the RFC and provide guidance on how to handle it in
    > > the RFC directly.
    > >
    > >
    > The proposed update seems reasonable to me. However, we don't have to
    > make assumptions regarding how handle is generated by RDAP servers. In
    > my opinion, the document should simply give guidance to RDAP
    > implementers about how to disambiguate cases where overlap may occur.
    > Therefore, I would change the sentence as in the following:
    >
    > OLD
    >
    > The server SHOULD define a scheme
    > for the <handle> parameter to differentiate
    >
    > NEW
    >
    > Where overlap may occur, the server SHOULD define a scheme for the
    > <handle> parameter to differentiate

    I'm still not comfortable with this. If we suggest that the server MUST or SHOULD do something to define a scheme, we leave open the issue of how a client discovers that scheme - and if we add a processing step to discover the scheme, we've changed the protocol from the client's perspective. I still believe that this is an issue best addressed in an implementation profile document and not the protocol specification.

    Scott
    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    regext@ietf.org
    https://secure-web.cisco.com/14qQ5GBAbqizg1W93npsiyV-qaIPAEr0IPtYJq1e7X-_7EoaNxVfB1TEiGzncUFjJiWvcnx6HykFwrZ-ABrD6xiCsFOMEGvVa2nDcW_IEtcp3Kp7hIrt7QPfU1p8toWJrW6Cam0kzs62ESNznCXJSwbu2i9LvV_B2lJ_5iFZL_W3yetKjwXg0uiEC8RQ26Ce90KoEXMuk-nZ5uY-UUHWe1MXXF9N0PIwrFts920hzq-qzWa1SHCEGSw3o0Odax04AFTW15t-zXQUXQWTY0UPnWd5ve9mRKR1zu3ao84TP6yA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext