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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

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."?

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