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

[Jasdip Singh <[e-mail]>]

Hello Mario,

Please find my comment below.

Jasdip

On 7/31/20, 12:21 PM, "Mario Loffredo" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    Il 31/07/2020 16:35, Jasdip Singh ha scritto:
    > IMHO, the current wording in 7843bis seems clear enough, especially the phrase "specifications used in the construction of the response." It is about what specifications were used for the returned response. No?
    
    In my opinion, the sentence "specifications used in the construction of 
    the response" seems to be limited to those specifications introducing 
    some response extensions or complying the response with a specific 
    profile. The current reverse search proposal affects only the query 
    formats.

[JS] Right, this proposal extends RDAP query scenarios but rdapConformance is about response capabilities for various query scenarios, including this one. So if a reverse search query is responded to, including the new extension in the rdapConformance portion of the response indicates that capability. And, the current description of rdapConformance in 7843bis being response-centric seems to suffice as-is for the newly proposed extension.
    
    > On 7/31/20, 10:28 AM, "regext on behalf of Mario Loffredo" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    >
    >      
    >      Il 31/07/2020 16:10, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto:
    >      >> -----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."
    >      
    >      OK. I wrote "extensions" in my previous message to mean "in addition to
    >      rdap_level_0".
    >      
    >      Mario
    >      
    >      >
    >      > Scott