Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:49 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-regext-
> rdap-reverse-search
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Il 31/07/2020 15:21, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 9:03 AM
> >> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] IANA Considerations in
> >> draft-ietf-regext- rdap-reverse-search
> >>
> >> Hi Scott,
> >>
> >> thanks a lot for your feddback.
> >>
> >> Please find my comments to your feedback below.
> >>
> >> Il 31/07/2020 14:29, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
> >>> draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search currently states that "This
> >>> document
> >> has no actions for IANA".  I believe that's primarily because there's
> >> nothing new or different being returned in the search results, which
> >> is where RDAP servers describe the features they support.
> >> Exactly.
> >>> There is, however, a case to be made for registering a value in the
> >>> RDAP
> >> extensions registry: a response to a help query (or any other query)
> >> can be used to indicate that the server supports reverse search. I'd
> >> like to suggest this change for Section 7:
> >>> OLD:
> >>> This document has no actions for IANA.
> >>>
> >>> NEW:
> >>> IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
> >>> Extensions
> >> Registry:
> >>> Extension identifier: reverse_search_1_0 (or whatever makes sense)
> >>> Registry operator: Any Published specification: This document.
> >>> Contact: IESG <[e-mail]>
> >>> Intended usage: This extension describes reverse search query
> >>> patterns
> >> for RDAP.
> >>> Scott
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, my opinion is that Section 4.1 of RFC7483bis should be
> >> updated to treat this use case. I mean, a server should signal in
> >> rdapConformance not only the extensions used in building the response
> >> but all the supported features.
> > So maybe this?
> >
> > OLD:
> > The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each
> providing a hint as to the specifications used in the construction of the
> response.
> >
> > NEW:
> > The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each
> providing a hint as to the specifications that describe the query and response
> formats supported by the server.
> >
> > Scott
>
> How about "query and response extensions" ?

That would exclude the core protocol specifications. Is this better?

"The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each of which describes a query or response specification supported by the server."

Scott