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

Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Wed, 20 July 2022 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
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 D6596C14CF05 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 23:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiTZW6vI1o4m for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 23:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.58.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E327FC14CF06 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 23:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E15B80267; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:15:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it
Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mGi9IiCnfc_t; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:15:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.staff.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59E9CB8015A; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:15:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <07068e9a-2986-467b-2191-dba0d1638521@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:13:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Cc: "Gould, James" <jgould@verisign.com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
References: <DB38F1D3-FC41-4B42-8C00-AB408FD1F204@verisign.com> <CAAQiQReG1MTF8EFuSMASoeuct+h+wmLUZRmgyvyo-fHL2g918g@mail.gmail.com> <8be4182a-c540-0f96-c3ba-2849fcd399d4@iit.cnr.it> <CAAQiQRdXsoUW_f35HHDCX0xjrxictsUi0J8uwB62uTuHLHSMUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRdXsoUW_f35HHDCX0xjrxictsUi0J8uwB62uTuHLHSMUw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/SyJUdE-Y8W9D5a-AbML0EqJyJg8>
Subject: Re: [regext] OK, What Next? (was RDAP Extensions Approach Analysis v2)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 06:15:39 -0000

Il 19/07/2022 19:34, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:21 PM Mario Loffredo
> <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> wrote:
>> HI Andy,
>>
>> In my opinion, it doesn't work when the extension is related to a
>> specification defined out of the RDAP context but is used in RDAP such
>> as JSContact or VCARD itself. In this case, a server can simply update
>> the hint in rdapConformance to signal that a new version of the external
>> specification is supported.
> Excellent point. I need to read the existing drafts more carefully,
> but my initial thought is that extensions created via IETF consensus
> (i.e. this working group) can define JSON members that do not strictly
> adhere to the prefix identifier if no other way can be found. We
> really want to avoid ExampleNicA and ExampleNicB colliding with their
> own custom extensions. However, the standards of this WG are
> well-known so there should be some latitude.
>
> Off the top of my head, the criteria needed for this exception should be:
>
> 1. standards track proposal with IETF consensus
> 2. does not conflict with any currently registered extensions
> 3. cannot be accomplished otherwise
> 4. specification must clearly enumerate this exception
>
>
>> As a matter of fact, we have already done it (even if unconsciously)
>> without either passing from "rdap_level_0" to "rdap_level_1".
>>
>> I'm referring to the fact that the RDAP response format has indirectly
>> been extended to support the VCARD CC parameter when RDAP responses were
>> already provided by servers and consumed by clients.
> That's probably something that should be fixed if we care. I don't. :)

Me neither. It was just a demonstration that, your exceptions aside, 
Approach A raises some drawbacks.

The introduction of the CC parameter didn't break the clients because it 
represented an additive change.

In similar cases, it's unnecessary to complicate things that can be done 
easily.


Mario

>
> -andy

-- 
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://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo