Re: [regext] Proposal about jCard replacement

Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>
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 8CC2012008A for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 07:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=centralnic-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 4LjLXeY9aJor for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 07:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE806120098 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id z23so9779560wma.4 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=centralnic-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Pn2ofa7hrL0Yj45pB/Mu3WrqpL6kQ1pdgnc9KvMSLBY=; b=gf9WkwBwCTmK8PYMBYhSHVHBtHS7MpBpw2Ski4N6SbnIZeEsyfkK3A6wDUbiPZkk8N zdroj0tgGxiaNkvMOfEV3VoyauGDNOL+hkUTybXfDYOhowuyUqJyOlC6brh31ResjWMD Dx/a5uP/LG3SgSMpcw2c0SklyI/AHQ9FsIWbNL4VNmPEfevESY1qyyXQMyNaOaE3i46l EuSbmgNehnP+Vo9kbjxAW1Ii+em+7sqmmacKQMIxEALrSe54f9uv5dGdX9WQ5Z/WvxgZ ZFONL3twuzbWiOgYfMPD14g41RpTj7BbGWrt2t7/WrUOKLBJpA2A1pACQ2zwwL9VTLvk /bdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Pn2ofa7hrL0Yj45pB/Mu3WrqpL6kQ1pdgnc9KvMSLBY=; b=TkI7GZQD32FGXZGGXYjowq1O4o+GLVpFLYtwUclYrN8jbFPy2c1PbEbgIld+PN6bA2 lvUO9xuD67AFI86iIuoelui+P5421w6c+ZXvU9FLTB29iz4bhNlK6E3WsEL5Kuzhj2K1 oVwcbZrCF+U2zFr8aBUWx6TJQRiq90Q035qbUrkqIY77ZwXZm98esTqdA8NHN4Qy3GLe 4wEp/uXXmlqtRtWZAzBVD4uJSA2+F6ykZbVxE1tNdxmD2mOUV21hQR/83iBxBB3Y0Ofh Fmt1XmO0QPErZ/OSUk08dikim03x14WO3KRfVqULwxAkypUPtM8uck5dWDmOuZyUXlui Kq3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX5ZkFGqw+AwMEl1J6BQOMzUejdj51bTq1bN/E9Alh0UVN1ZWbg u6C2U4C/fkIhUMtAdL/xiNc4cbujEii1Iw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyS9m5QVhcxwOxadrlIj9ccY5fCw4qbpVB53Mf6HMXojG25OEPX6U3UbbQ2Ukx0mxodrpo3Cw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:5f09:: with SMTP id t9mr4078443wmb.112.1562338631226; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 07:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.28] ([31.127.75.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y16sm1772155wrw.33.2019.07.05.07.57.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 07:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>
In-Reply-To: <ddd066c4-f0ff-3ac5-6c66-b09a83da8156@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:57:09 +0100
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D85A87A9-6191-4C0C-A6DD-09B8CDC095AF@centralnic.com>
References: <92a04c65-649e-e769-cc3f-44642b1653ce@iit.cnr.it> <28A8273D-2B7F-40A8-9297-9A507923B79C@centralnic.com> <ddd066c4-f0ff-3ac5-6c66-b09a83da8156@iit.cnr.it>
To: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/PNBwPcA0S8CUpGSCNnU_F82Xj7k>
Subject: Re: [regext] Proposal about jCard replacement
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 14:57:16 -0000

Hi Mario,

>> I would be happy to publish a new version of draft-brown-epp-contacts-in-rdap which uses JSContact rather than its own representation of contact data. That would glue JSContact and RDAP together.
> 
> IMHO it would be better to write a new document with the contribution of who is willing to implement JSCard in his own RDAP server (you, me, maybe Andy).

I'd be very happy to contribute.

> I think other stuff has still to be discussed. For example, what to do to make the transition from JCard to JSCard as smooth as possible. Should JSCard become the default and JCard an optional capability or viceversa?

Good question. That's a decision for this WG to make. Adding JSContact as an optional extension would be straightforward: making it the default would essentially create RDAP 1.1 which is a somewhat more complex proposition.

> How could an RDAP server inform a client that it is able to return contact information according to the JSCard format?

Unless we define a way to know an RDAP server's capabilities in advance, the client has no way to find out except to send a query and see what it gets back. As a client implementer I'm fine with this: some servers will support jCard forever so I need to continue to support them (even if only as legacy code). Some will immediately move to JSContact. Some may offer both in parallel, especially during an upgrade period, as we have seen during the migration of EPP from secDNS-1.0 to secDNS1.1.

If we need provide a way to know in advance (I'm not sure we do) then we could (a) alter the structure of the bootstrap file, (b) use server specification mechanism as you outlined at the ROW in Bangkok[1], or come up with some other mechanism (maybe by specify how the OPTIONS method can be used with RDAP?).

> We can have a short talk about it at the next meeting.

Alas I will not be present but will try to join remotely if possible.

G.

[1] http://regiops.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ROW8-PPT-An-RDAP-capability-for-server-specification-provisioning-Mario-Loffredo-Maurizio-Martinelli.pdf