Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: (with COMMENT)

[Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

please find my comments below.

Il 08/09/2020 12:05, Rob Wilton (rwilton) ha scritto:
> Hi Mario,
>
> Please see inline ...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mario Loffredo
>> Sent: 07 September 2020 18:04
>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; regext-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
>> partial-response-13: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> thanks a lot for your review. Please find my comments inline.
>>
>> Il 07/09/2020 16:28, Robert Wilton via Datatracker ha scritto:
>>> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13: No Objection
>>>
>>> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-
>> criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-
>> response/
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thank you for this document.  I have two minor comments:
>>>
>>> 2.1.2.  Representing Subsetting Links
>>>
>>>              "value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com
>>>                        &fieldSet=afieldset",
>>>
>>> Should "afieldset" be "anotherfieldset"?
>> [ML] In web linking (RFC8288), the "value" field contains the context
>> URI and the "target" field contains the target URI in a given relation
>> with the context URI.
>>
>> In Figure 2, the context URI is the current view of the results provided
>> according to the current field set (i.e. "afieldset") while the target
>> URI is an alternative view provided according another field set (i.e.
>> "anotherieldset")
> [RW]
>
> Ah, yes.  Thanks for the clarification/explanation.
>
>
>>> 5.  Negative Answers
>>>
>>>      Each request including an empty or unsupported "fieldSet" value MUST
>>>      produce an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code.  Optionally, the
>>>      response MAY include additional information regarding the negative
>>>      answer in the HTTP entity body.
>>>
>>> Given the solution suggests that subsetting metadata may be included in
>>> positive responses, it might be helpful to also include similar metadata
>> in
>>> negative responses.  I.e. rather than just stating that a fieldSet is
>> invalid,
>>> perhaps there should be a recommendation that the response include the
>> list of
>>> possible valid values that fieldSet may take?
>> [ML] I think this pertains to the server policy. RDAP (RFC7483) allows
>> producers to provide consumers with additional information in error
>> responses through "notices" and "notices" can include "links".
> [RW]
>
> Yes, I agree that server policy may want to restrict what information is returned on the error case.
>
>
>> Definitively, I would keep the fully compliance with the error response
>> structure defined in RFC7483.
> [RW]
>
> Okay.  I agree that having the structure conform to RFC7843 makes sense.
>
> I was sort of thinking of something more like section 6 from RFC 7483.  E.g., the text could provide an example error response something like:
>
>     {
>       "errorCode": 400,
>       "title": "FieldSet 'unknown-fieldset' is not a valid FieldSet"
>       "description":
>       [
>         "Supported FieldSet values are 'a-valid-fieldset' and 'another-valid-fieldset'."
>       ]
>     }
>
> Probably this should only be returned if the request was otherwise valid.
>
> And, I agree that the server could also choose to return valid links as part of notices.
>
> Do you think that it would be helpful for the document to elaborate beyond "Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding the negative answer in the HTTP entity body."?

OK. I would write:

"Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding the supported fieldSet values in the HTTP entity body."

Besides, I can include something similar to your example as  an example 
error response.

Does it works for you?

Cheers,

Mario

>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>>
>> Looking forward to your reply to my comments.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mario
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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: [phone]
>> Mobile: [phone]
>> Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

-- 
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: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo