Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)

Scott,

I don't believe anything needs to be changed in 9083.  Where "lunarNIC" is the registered prefix identifier and the RDAP conformance value "lunarNIC_level_0" might be used.  This supports the use of the registered prefix identifier and the needed versioning.  

-- 

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 6/27/22, 9:38 AM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    Mario, there's a basic problem with the approach you're suggesting below. We 
    can't "correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with what decided".

    The "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream" statement provides 
    guidance for what we can and cannot do:

    https://secure-web.cisco.com/1V_oFdQEIWuGT_dN8fQSYXCZzrWnfzH9rGieJ4s_OqWNMGS7DXUn2eUGXSePIhNcBoUl-o1RWtngwq8OSMZOnVCTGcmdz4zhbaD1Wf3vF5c6c7yfAd-TVYYidTUBHczFr3K4l0sZaxH1tS1tQybTK6fUFYaTPxWcRe9-eW5ySkLoOVOmnjYSnsTbyL9y2O5k3s3t8ub-6INo5aHL5vmd72uQQtEJ4-k64WTfvwOUHHwdn4zPYWP5q10HqPDgscdWA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fprocessing-errata-ietf-stream%2F

    Note these statements:

    "Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used to 
    change what the community meant when it approved the RFC."

    "Errata are classified as “technical” or “editorial”."

    "Technical errata are expected to be things that would likely cause 
    significant misunderstandings of the technical specification and might result 
    in faulty implementations if they are not corrected."

    "Technical items that have a clear resolution in line with the original intent 
    should be classified as Verified. If the resolution is not clear or requires 
    further discussion, the report should be classified as Hold for Document 
    Update. In both cases, only items that are clearly wrong should be 
    considered."

    "Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that might be 
    different from the intended consensus when the document was approved should 
    generally be Rejected. Significant clarifications should not be handled as 
    errata reports and need to be discussed by the relevant technical community."

    "Changes that modify the working of a process, such as changing an IANA 
    registration procedure, to something that might be different from the intended 
    consensus when the document was approved should be Rejected."

    What I'm proposing (report the inconsistency in 9083 and make the "lunarNIC" 
    vs. "lunarNIC_level_0" thing consistent) is aligned with the above. The 
    current text is obviously causing significant misunderstandings of the 
    technical specification, and my proposed change* matches the intended 
    consensus when the document was approved. The desire to make more significant 
    changes to 9083, to include any changes focused on how to identify and manage 
    versioning, really needs to be addressed independently.

    Scott

    * I'm willing to request that instances of "lunarNIC" be changed to 
    "lunarNIC_level_0" if that's preferred. Andy and I believe that the original 
    intent was for the values to be consistent, and this change would also align 
    with use of "rdap_level_0".

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
    > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 AM
    > To: regext@ietf.org
    > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions
    > Approach Analysis v2)
    >
    > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
    > links
    > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
    > is safe.
    >
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > I invite you to consider that, currently, rdap-reverse-search and, 
    > potentially,
    > three other RDAP-related docs are blocked waiting for the end of this
    > discussion.
    >
    > In addition, it seems to me more logical, first, to decide how RDAP 
    > exentions
    > must be treated and, then, correct RFC 9083 to make it consistent with what
    > decided.
    >
    > Once agreed on which approach to follow, we could proceed in parallel with
    > the correction of RFC 9083 and the writing of a document defining the
    > guidelines for extending RDAP.
    >
    > For the sake of completeness and comprehension, such a document might
    > include the scenarios Jasdip has described in his analysis.
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Mario
    >
    >
    > Il 15/06/2022 19:27, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
    > > Thanks for doing all this work, Jasdip. Now we have to decide what to do
    > with
    > > all of this information.
    > >
    > > As a first step, I think we need to submit errata to address issues with 
    > > the
    > > existing RFC(s). RFC 9083 uses both "lunarNIC" and "lunarNIC_level_0".  At
    > a
    > > minimum, Andy and I agree that "lunarNIC_level_0" should be replaced
    > with
    > > "lunarNIC".
    > >
    > > Rationale: Section 2.1 of RFC 9083 describes "lunarNIC" as an example of 
    > > an
    > > identifying prefix and includes examples of this value being used as an
    > > extension prefix. Section 4.1 says "For example, if the fictional Registry 
    > > of
    > > the Moon wants to signify that their JSON responses are conformant with
    > their
    > > registered extensions, the string used might be "lunarNIC_level_0". We
    > believe
    > > that 4.1 and 2.1 are inconsistent and that they can be made consistent by
    > > changing "lunarNIC_level_0" with "lunarNIC" in 4.1.
    > >
    > > Additional errata may be needed. If so, where, and what else needs to be
    > done?
    > >
    > > Scott
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > regext mailing list
    > > regext@ietf.org
    > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sPv-
    > dLzvvqhNDXbiOOjohSnIO97wGQlAwNMpaY3C1_JwFw8ZcW5yQKcqwEMjjI4a
    > wA-Jl-e-tV4WSuYkK6ga2H5oLbNJuwp-O9KiMNKynBi1Mkn0Bv_AZ8rq2G-
    > Dajc2YkeBA8viu7YJWWAr4AL74OjYAIXKkLYhP7srUtpD9M94cWjRPcUMlQmtS
    > DKU33bc5zTBP1RbMJOXmxIuxOlu8vd4DhsVN9gzqOWeoHdCi-
    > uCH9HX3xgUp6w1-
    > zSiYr0K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
    >
    > --
    > Dr. 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://secure-
    > web.cisco.com/1tDmAE3yEIWzsMXoMIliAb7B8sxyrzbH1sGKAJgZa_qRqMiFfP
    > STq4tq2ieXF83omlH12rdACydGrVu4sEPz9UTOExDvMKGC4wsoXQx71DAE-
    > xr3l6jIFv200l9aKQE_149dEbt_ystXWGuWxMjIJXeEIce2zpyuBNc27m43gVjK_c
    > o23TUyEQWCsfQHD8H1lsLQpc3OGoz_05I0AwljSDG3vwc5vV8plppwhhkS2z9C
    > TqYsdnpctlwEXIYGToCuF/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iit.cnr.it%2Fmario.loffredo
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > regext mailing list
    > regext@ietf.org
    > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sPv-
    > dLzvvqhNDXbiOOjohSnIO97wGQlAwNMpaY3C1_JwFw8ZcW5yQKcqwEMjjI4a
    > wA-Jl-e-tV4WSuYkK6ga2H5oLbNJuwp-O9KiMNKynBi1Mkn0Bv_AZ8rq2G-
    > Dajc2YkeBA8viu7YJWWAr4AL74OjYAIXKkLYhP7srUtpD9M94cWjRPcUMlQmtS
    > DKU33bc5zTBP1RbMJOXmxIuxOlu8vd4DhsVN9gzqOWeoHdCi-
    > uCH9HX3xgUp6w1-
    > zSiYr0K/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    regext@ietf.org
    https://secure-web.cisco.com/1koVgFwXjNQjGlB5ua2nkhXLFmoQfAZZSy4Ue5jAsDqoUOHPmudpISewmydg0IU9zTmDML1UyKWPHRngPuXl9tXvprC3IJTW3jb8hNx8SjP6w3CbU_6myeF-bp9fID6MF0u0_B5BY9sUyBWXO2jtv5_1XX4gSmyiJtmw_p8ErDyvYLK86eqS3La0iodAi2MYhsKycTdH3QAXQa4qX0AGWh7oSMDw4GLSXT96X-9yGQ5NuZFO6qecYM3ZVK32hg7o3/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext